| 1 |
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:35:21 -0800 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> PMS cannot be ran in such a way that one person stonewalling is |
| 4 |
> able to hold up the majority's will. That's always been a flaw w/ |
| 5 |
> how it was managed and has impacted the resultant spec several times |
| 6 |
> over. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The majority were about to go and mandate an mtime solution that |
| 9 |
couldn't be used for compiled python modules. We should be going with |
| 10 |
what's right, not with the majority. Ramming something through on a |
| 11 |
majority is a last resort that should only be taken if a solution |
| 12 |
that's acceptable to everyone cannot be reached. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And again: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
What's wrong with doing a careful, phased withdrawal of kdebuild-1? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Also, unless I'm on crack, the person leading PMS is fauli- I'd |
| 19 |
> expect he's the one who can pull the veto trick, not you. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If *anyone* has any objections to patches, we resolve those objections |
| 22 |
before proceeding. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives