This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


On May  8, 2018, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:

> On 05/08/2018 09:46 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> There was Ondřej's objection posted the day before the patch went in.

> I will admit that I thought Ondrej was joking with his objection.

He could be, but in the absence of clarification on the record, could
one just proceed and run him over?  Or is arbitrary interpretation of
objectors' intentions part of the rules too?

How does that compare with my allegedly breaking the rules for
interpreting others' objections in narrower ways they claim they meant
them?


In the presence of one unwithdrawn apparent objection (let's dismiss
RMS's in-comments objection for the sake of the argument), raised over
a period of 48 hours, what do the rules state?  Do we have consensus, or
do we not?

In my understanding of the rules, there should have been continued
conversation to at least attempt to converge the result into consensus
so that pending objections were withdrawn.  I don't see any evidence
of that in the records.

Could it have still taken place, with or without visible evidence
elsewhere?  Sure.  I hope it did.

But still, given the common community behavior of not raising or
supporting objections when one is already in effect, other objections,
like mind, might exist that found no need to be voiced right away.  The
existence of an apparent objection on the record, even if withdrawn
elsewhere, hid other objections.

So even if one admitted to dismissing it as a single objection, under
the non-unanimity motto, I don't think we can conclude that there was
consensus.  At best there may have seemed to be consensus.

Now, given your apparent surprise, and that of others, when facing the
statement that there were objections on the record, how could there be
such adamant statements that there was consensus?  I wouldn't assume the
earlier statements were meant as lies, because they'd be too easy to
catch, nor as evidence of off-the-record withdrawing of the objections,
for there'd be no surprise then, but they're now looking very much like
uninformed statements.

I guess now would be good opportunity to correct them and apologize, no?

Or do you still sustain that there was consensus for the removal at the
time the patch went in?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]