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