This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.
On 05/10/2018 12:41 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 10, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> In a community, particularly a community one contributes to actively,
>> and is involved in on day-to-day functioning.
>
> Hey, Torvald, you might want to complain about the snarky remark above,
> in addition to my present response ;-)
Sorry, I didn't intend it to be snarky, just instructive. I see how it
might be perceived that way by you though. Sorry about that.
>> My analysis was that Ondrej made a joke.
>
> So you did not confirm before telling Zack to install the patch.
No.
>> Had it not been a joke he would have responded so here
>
> But then it would be too late. Zack installed the patch just two hours
> after you gave the green light.
Correct, at that point I'd be asking Ondrej to give a much more detailed
objection before reverting the patch.
>> Therefore there was consensus.
>
> Except for RMS's preexisting objection on the record, and other actual
> objections (like mine) that weren't posted because there was an
> *apparent* standing objection by Ondřey. The argument about unvoiced
> additional objections because of a presumably standing one was accepted
> when it favored your position, why not when it disfavors it? You also
> endorsed someone's email who purported to disagree with me stating that
> our community is not about posting objections very very quickly. I had
> pointed out the rules led to just that undesirable behavior. But when
> it favors your position, you don't seem to mind its undesirable effects.
An objection is something that happens in a discussion about a patch.
> Anyway, given all of this, wouldn't it be more honest to conclude that
> there *seemed* to be consensus, provided that objections on the record
> were assumed irrelevant, and assuming the absence of unvoiced objections
> expecting the consensus-building process to be followed to the letter?
No. There was consensus. There was perhaps a small chance that Ondrej's
post was misunderstood, that's true.
> Unless you want to pretend that we really had consensus, and all the
> debate that ensued was just violent agreement.
I don't follow. Are you making a joke here?
--
Cheers,
Carlos.