Re: [rain1 at airmail dot cc] Delete abortion joke

[Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 20:25 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  7, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 17:11 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request
> >> would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the
> >> discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic.  But no, the
> >> project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of the
> >> appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, [...]
> 
> > How did we end up in a place where you consider follow-the-leader to
> > simply override strong community consensus?
> 
> I don't.  I just restored the initial conditions until the debate about
> whether or not to remove the snippet reached consensus, otherwise it
> would have been distorted.

It had consensus (not unanimous though) all the time.  Do you actually
think there's no consensus now?  I've said elsewhere in this thread that
quickly counting, I end up at 11 active or recently active developers
being in favor of the removal, many of them strongly in favor.

And look at what you wrote above: "the project has been taken out of the
hands of its founder, and most of the appointed stewards seem to think
it's reasonable to disregard it".  How is that not about valuing
follow-the-leader higher than community consensus?
You're essentially saying that 11 is less than 1 here.

> If there's such a strong consensus as those berating me wish to imply,
> it shouldn't be a problem to reach it and have the change reinstated,
> all within the community rules.

It had consensus initially.  You then ignored that (see Carlos
comments), and reverted the removal.

> Now, I suspect some will argue for changing the consensus rules or even
> fork if the current community-adopted rules get in the way of what they
> want.

Elsewhere in the thread, I stated my opinion that your behavior in
discussions can be toxic.  This statement here is another fresh example
of that.  You imply that there is reason to believe that others would do
certain things, but there's actually no reason for any of that:
* Nobody (but you) actually argued for changing the consensus rules.
Instead, RMS and you argued that the consensus rules don't really apply
because they can always be overriden by RMS.
* I suggested a fork as a last resolve, but only if it is ignored that
glibc is a consensus-based, community-driven project -- IOW, if the
community-adopted rules are tried to be ignored.  That's the opposite of
"get[ting] in the way of what they want".

IOW, you suggest that others made different statements than they
actually did, and you add some "perhaps" and "maybe" to avoid a direct
accusation.