Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal.

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

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 ;-)

> My analysis was that Ondrej made a joke.

So you did not confirm before telling Zack to install the patch.

> 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.

> 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.

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?

Unless you want to pretend that we really had consensus, and all the
debate that ensued was just violent agreement.

-- 
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