Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

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

> No.  The intial commit got approvals from no less than 4 developers,

and opposition by one developer and the ultimate maintainer, and who
knows how many other silent opposers like myself who decided not to post
right away because there were other oppositions on the record already.

How can you argue it should have gone in anyway, without further
discussions?  How can you argue it was not rushed in despite the absence
of consensus?

> The revert patch was basically a unilateral decision given that there
> was no consensus on it.

Absence of opposition, per the rules, is consensus.

There were oppositions to the notion of keeping the patch, as part of
the larger discussion on whether or not the patch should be removed.
But there was no opposition whatsoever to my proposal to restore the
initial state, by reverting the patch that shouldn't have gone in in the
first place.

> It's not wrong given that Alex is an FSF steward and is probably
> within his right to do that but it is in bad faith given the sustained
> objections to the patch.

Even if we take as true your claim that there was sustained objection to
the temporary reversal proposal, there was also objection, sustained to
this date, to the initial patch, and it was there before the patch went
in.

What kind of specious argument could defend that one can go in ignoring
the objections, but the other that makes things the way they were
supposed to be can't?

-- 
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