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

[Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 16:27 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > it seems pretty obvious now that the majority of people who
> > have spoken out are in favor of removing the "joke"
> 
> You've been a lot more involved with glibc day to day than I have
> lately, but it seems to me that you're confused about the governing
> rules adopted by this community.

It's not appropriate for you to say that I'm confused. 

> The stepping stone is not tiranny of the majority, but rather consensus
> building.

We did work towards consensus.  Look at this thread and all the
thought-out replies and opinions.

If you think that tyranny of the majority is avoided by endless
approaches to try to reach consensus, then that's tyranny of the
minority.  That's why we say that unanimous consent is not necessary to
reach consensus.  Look at the numbers, please -- we're not talking about
a 60/40 split or something like that.

> This means that if there is opposition to a proposed change, it is up to
> the proponent to listen to the involved parties and attempt to find
> middle ground so that opinions converge, or at least that objections be
> withdrawn.
> 
> Is that not so?

And we tried that, and the majority and you have not changed their
opinions.  So, given that the majority is much bigger, we follow the
majority and move on.

> > What also happened, though, is that RMS showed up and that said that the
> > community's consensus process wouldn't apply, that he'd have the last
> > say, always, if he wanted, and that the arguments and opinions of a
> > majority of the active developers don't matter.
> > That will push people away, because it undermines the community.
> 
> You might be surprised that I very much agree with your perception
> stated in the paragraph above, and also with your conclusion.  It was
> not nice that he did so.

So what does that mean precisely, for you?  According to other
statements by you, you still don't seem to accept that we are
consensus-based project.  Can we actually get you and RMS to acknowledge
that?

> The community had not been nice to him either.

The community disagreed with him.  Nobody has insulted him as you try to
claim.

> All involved parties were at fault, and throwing feces at each other
> won't get us very far, other than far from each other.

Nobody has been throwing feces.  You made some toxic remarks.  That's
it.  Don't try to claim that everyone is a victim here.