Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>]

On 05/07/2018 05:07 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> It will be hard to make progress with multiple issues at the same time.
> 
> It's not multiple issues.
> 
>> However, you go against the objections of at least 3 of your fellow
>> GNU project maintainers.
> 
> Show me where they objected to MY proposal.

https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-05/msg00055.html

"I also object to ANY replacement of the original joke."

The problem is that you didn't care to reach consensus, so you didn't
summarize the opposing points, did not tally who was for or against,
and just did whatever you wanted to do.

> I don't care if they objected to something else in the larger debate.
> The larger debate isn't over yet, so whatever their opinion is matters
> once consensus is reached for the larger debate.  People's opinions
> regarding a debate are supposed to affect the state *after* the debate,
> not *during* it.  Right?  Or are you suggesting we should change the
> rules so as to say that, if enough people shout loud enough or sneak the
> patch in early enough, they get to change the initial conditions of the
> debated issue in their favor?

There was no sneaking of any patch.

The patch was accepted by 2 GNU package maintainers (Paul and myself),
appointed by Richard, and you just undid that, because you wanted to.

That's fine. You didn't break any GNU policy. But you did willfully
ignore the objections of other GNU package maintainers and did what
you wanted.

The discussion is ongoing, and I will do my usual due diligence as arbiter
in complex discussions, and try to understand both sides of the debate,
and reach some consensus.

>>> This is also in line with the community-agreed procedures.
> 
>> No. Is not in line. You have ignored the community principles and checked
>> in the patch against the objections of fellow GNU package maintainers.
>  
> I have not.  Again, show me ANY objections to MY proposal, posted before
> I pushed the reversal, or before the email in which I said I was doing
> so.

I did. Above.

>>> It is obvious that we didn't have consensus on a decision to install
>>> that patch, since both sides are still arguing over it.
> 
>> No. At the time the patch had consensus.
> 
> No, it only seemed to have consensus, because of a regrettable mistake
> on the committer's part, and another of mine (I decided to ask RMS
> *before* raising my objection).  I objected, and RMS objected.  He
> hadn't been given a chance to speak yet.  That's not consensus, that's
> sneaking stuff in.

It is not sneaking stuff in.

I was appointed as a GNU package maintainer, and I used my judgement to 
agree with the removal of the joke.

We have other better venues to discuss these issues and to reach broader
audiences, without doing harm to those that come to read our manual. That
is my opinion though, and I will have to understand your own opinions,
and that of Richard to reach consensus.

>> The reversal does not.
> 
> The restoration of the initial status quo to unbias the discussion was
> not opposed by anyone, if it was even read.

Your read was incorrect. That's OK.

>> It's OK though as a GNU package maintainer you do not need to follow
>> any of these rules.
> 
> Thank you for that concession, but it's not necessary.  I'm perfectly in
> line with the consensus rules, regardless of how others might prefer to
> confess to cheating in the consensus rules than to admitting that they
> did not respond to my proposal.
 
The harder question I have to answer is:

What happens if two GNU package maintainers for glibc disagree?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.