This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- To: munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Cc: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 19:55:52 +0530
- Subject: Re: Machine maintainer veto.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <559606DB dot 6070600 at redhat dot com> <20150703062020 dot GN1173 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <55968712 dot 2020604 at redhat dot com> <20150703153427 dot GP1173 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <1436189186 dot 9162 dot 20 dot camel at oc7878010663>
On 6 July 2015 at 18:56, Steven Munroe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> There has to be a balance between the consensus of the community and the
> requirements of the platform (as represented by the maintainer).
> Democratic consensus can quickly turn into the mob rule, where ignorance
> or malice of community members with strong but unfounded opinions can
> also do great harm. Read up on the Death of Socrates or later stages of
> the French revolution.
> I think we need a balance of Powers definition that protects both
Agreed, I don't think I intended to counter this at all when I asked
for the veto wording to be altered. As a maintainer if you think
there is an effort (either due to ignorance or malice) to stonewall a
patchset, please feel free to call it out.