From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 71827 invoked by alias); 10 May 2018 06:49:21 -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 71414 invoked by uid 89); 10 May 2018 06:48:49 -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= 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> <67e1ea34-7ffa-e7cf-8c6f-5837051a5bd6@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 06:49:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <67e1ea34-7ffa-e7cf-8c6f-5837051a5bd6@redhat.com> (Carlos O'Donell's message of "Thu, 10 May 2018 01:55:44 -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/msg00456.txt.bz2 On May 10, 2018, "Carlos O'Donell" wrote: > On 05/10/2018 12:41 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> 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 ;-) > Sorry, I didn't intend it to be snarky, just instructive. I see how it > might be perceived that way by you though. Sorry about that. Then I, in turn, apologize for misunderstanding your intent (I must say I was surprised indeed to see that coming from you :-), and for returning in (perceived) kind what you did not deserve. >> Unless you want to pretend that we really had consensus, and all the >> debate that ensued was just violent agreement. > I don't follow. Are you making a joke here? Yeah, the "pretend" and the "violent agreement" were meant as humorous, to soften my opposite opinion and understanding of the situation. Despite the (ambiguous, I guess from your question) attempt at humor, I really meant that whatever apparent consensus there was was not real: there's no doubt that there were objections that hadn't been posted quickly enough (Richard's came in shortly after the patch made it), and the ongoing discussion is more than proof that there really was no consensus in the usual sense. I acknowledge, however, that, disregarding enough stuff for various reasons, one might have concluded that there was consensus, but that conclusion, even if apparently correct, would be a mistake, given the subsequent debate. That was not the only mistake in the process that led to the installation of the patch. But that's ok. Those mistakes are now fixed, and we can focus on the upcoming release, and then get the consensus-seeking process on this issue back underway. Thanks a lot for suggesting the cool down period, BTW. Really appreciated. Until the consensus-building efforts are restarted, I won't post to the list messages about the debates on the removal of the joke, or about restoring the initial conditions while the debate plays out. or even about the process issues around them. I guess a reasonable exception to that might be further posts about my suggestions for improvement of the consensus-building process, but even that, I'll only post if prompted to do so, and entirely outside the context of the aforementioned debates. -- 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