> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > > At the same time, my status of committer in this project is
> > > honorific and emeritus. For this reason, I don't consider
> myself as
> > > a committer of this effort anymore (despite the fact that
> the system
> > > allows me to commit, if I really wanted to). My votes
> don't count,
> > > until you guys vote my emeritus status back (but I don't want to
> > > call for such a votation
> > right now).
> >
> > VOTE
> > ----
> > Restore Stefano's committer status IMMEDIATELY.
> >
> > Reason: Either Stefano has common sense or he hasn't. If he
> > has, he will not vote when he knows he does not understand the
> > issue. If he does not have common sense, well, will he care
> > about any "no-you-may-not-vote-or-change-CVS" rule? (No.)
> >
> > +1 from me.
>
> Stefano's CVS privaledges have not been revoked (at least to
> my knowledge). All he said was that he wants to regain the
> respect in this community and earn what he already has.
Yes - and that is what I am proposing. He explicitly says that
he will not vote until we (as a formality) vote him back as a
committer: "My votes don't count, until you guys vote my emeritus
status back (but I don't want to call for such a votation right
now)."
As I stated, if he has common sense he'll know when to vote and
when not to. If he doesn't have it, well, he won't remember any
*self-imposed* "no-you-may-not-vote-or-change-CVS" rule.
So give the guy a pat on the back, a "welcome back, dude, mate,
geezer (British meaning)" and see what happens. What's the worst
outcome?
1) A load of idiot mails and
2) and a lot of votes cast for "the wrong" proposals.
I won't comment (1), but if ONE person can, by voting, get
something moronic through, then the voting process is broken or
we're all equally moronic (by not vetoing).
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
