From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 43625 invoked by alias); 7 May 2018 04:41:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 43609 invoked by uid 89); 7 May 2018 04:41:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=ultimate X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com From: Alexandre Oliva To: "Carlos O'Donell" Cc: Zack Weinberg , GNU C Library Subject: Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke References: <87wowkx6t0.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <44cca7f5-59fa-4de1-95a8-9f4c2acc4c2e@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Carlos O'Donell's message of "Sun, 6 May 2018 22:03:08 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2 On May 6, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" 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. 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. This is also in line with the community-agreed procedures. It is obvious that we didn't have consensus on a decision to install that patch, since both sides are still arguing over it. 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. -- 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