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

[Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at gotplt dot org>]

On 05/09/2018 12:24 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> He could be, but in the absence of clarification on the record, could
> one just proceed and run him over?  Or is arbitrary interpretation of
> objectors' intentions part of the rules too?
>
> How does that compare with my allegedly breaking the rules for
> interpreting others' objections in narrower ways they claim they meant
> them?
>
> In the presence of one unwithdrawn apparent objection (let's dismiss
> RMS's in-comments objection for the sake of the argument), raised over
> a period of 48 hours, what do the rules state?  Do we have consensus, or
> do we not?

No you cannot compare DJ's unambiguous objection to the joke to Ondrej's 
most likely tongue in cheek remark (Trump == joke, etc.).  In any case I 
already agreed that in hindsight RMS should have been looped into the 
conversation before pushing the change.

Siddhesh