1 |
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 08:57:22PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> > Also, unless I'm on crack, the person leading PMS is fauli- I'd |
3 |
> > expect he's the one who can pull the veto trick, not you. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> If *anyone* has any objections to patches, we resolve those objections |
6 |
> before proceeding. |
7 |
|
8 |
Historically that has been a "do as I say, not as I do.". Via ability |
9 |
to directly commit to pms, bits have gone in that would've been |
10 |
argued- or, bits have been left out that would've made the change in |
11 |
general a no go. |
12 |
|
13 |
Unfortunately because of the way the rules are ran, once it's in all |
14 |
it takes is one person stonewalling to keep from getting it fixed- |
15 |
catch 22, if they can push it in then they get it via pulling a veto. |
16 |
|
17 |
Further, frankly it provides a way for you to stonewall fixing known |
18 |
flaws- the entire life of PMS you've been trying to force extended ~ |
19 |
atom support and no one can get that bit removed because *you* |
20 |
stonewall it. You wrote the original bits, now we can't fix the |
21 |
things you forced in via this idiotic veto rule. |
22 |
|
23 |
I digress. Take it to the council as said, it would be interesting to |
24 |
see the slap down on this one, and frankly PMS does need to be far |
25 |
more democratic. Pointing at academic issues (1^23 chance is |
26 |
academic, although yes, sorting it out for the academic case where |
27 |
the FS supports NS is useful) as a claim that the majority cannot |
28 |
overrule is plain political idiocy. |
29 |
|
30 |
Seriously, push it up to the council. You won't budge, and the rest |
31 |
of us probably don't want to spend 2 weeks playing email tag with you. |
32 |
|
33 |
Either that or we just back off and let you get your way per the norm. |
34 |
This I consider an untenuable solution if PMS is to have any |
35 |
relevance long term. |
36 |
~harring |