This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.
On 05/07/2018 12:41 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 6, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I am splitting it into two discussions:
>
>> (1) Discuss the deletion of the abortion/censorship joke.
>
>> (2) Discuss trauma caused by function names and their associations to other
>> languages.
>
> The issues are one and the same.
>
> The deletion of the censorship joke is (allegedly) justified by
> undesirable emotions that might allegedly be brought about by the joke,
> but its effect on at least one of the persons who shared information
> about their own trauma points at the opposite effect: the joke brings
> relief, which the deletion would take away. That's the *opposite* of
> the allegedly intended effect of the deletion. By dismissing that and
> pretending it to be a separate discussion you're just making it plain
> that you don't really care about the excuses for the deletion.
I care deeply, but in order to make progress issues need to be dealt
with individually in order for differing groups to make progress.
It will be hard to make progress with multiple issues at the same time.
> Since it all seems to be a sham, I'm about to comply with the decision
> of the project leader and primary and ultimate maintainer, who partially
> delegated maintainership to myself and others under certain constraints,
> and proceed to reverse the deletion.
Correct. However, you go against the objections of at least 3 of your fellow
GNU project maintainers. Consider that please.
> This is also in line with the community-agreed procedures.
No. Is not in line. You have ignored the community principles and checked
in the patch against the objections of fellow GNU package maintainers.
> It is obvious that we didn't have consensus on a decision to install
> that patch, since both sides are still arguing over it.
No. At the time the patch had consensus. The reversal does not. It's OK
though as a GNU package maintainer you do not need to follow any of these
rules.
> As for the decision to reverse the deletion, if we even need one to
> counter a move that did not have consensus, although nobody else offered
> to install the reversal and restore the status prior to the fait
> accompli, and some explicitly refused to do so themselves, nobody
> objected when I offered to do so. Therefore, by the same reasoning that
> led to the mistaken installation of the patch, and after a much longer
> wait for objections, I understand there is consensus on my reverting it.
No. You do not have consensus, but that's OK, *you* alone are putting the
patch back in and the rest of us will have nothing to do with it.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.