From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2352 invoked by alias); 10 May 2018 04:41:52 -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 2340 invoked by uid 89); 10 May 2018 04:41:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com From: Alexandre Oliva To: "Carlos O'Donell" Cc: Zack Weinberg , Siddhesh Poyarekar , GNU C Library Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert Abortion joke removal. References: <20180507235151.GC10348@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> <26d9590f-6e2f-8039-005f-a433b0ac8bfd@gotplt.org> <1525796705.7567.757.camel@redhat.com> <6e0c384e-7a95-a265-ba27-14cee1f166b1@gotplt.org> <459b2e8c-77aa-aa1a-ff5b-3f0a6377e7e8@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <459b2e8c-77aa-aa1a-ff5b-3f0a6377e7e8@redhat.com> (Carlos O'Donell's message of "Wed, 9 May 2018 23:52:05 -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; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00442.txt.bz2 On May 10, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" 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 Ond=C5=99ey. 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. --=20 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