Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On 8/15/06, Ralph Goers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> Sorry, in my book that's not a valid reason.
I think it is inappropriate for you to judge whether his reason is valid
or not.
If one does not view a veto as valid then one has to challenge it. To
do otherwise would not be taking your position as a committer
seriously.
His veto was challenged. A reason was stated. Now if the reason for
the veto was "the moon is not in alignment with the stars" it would be
reasonable to state that the reason isn't valid. But the reason given
was nothing of the kind. That doesn't mean you can't try to convince
him to change his mind using the two paragraphs that followed. But the
implication of the statement is that you don't recognize his -1 as being
valid, when in fact it is. You simply don't agree with it.
Furthermore, his veto won't be overturned by such a statement.
Although I agree with your argument below, I'm also not in favor of
questioning someone endlessly about a veto.
Ralph, I'm trying to be fair and ensure that Joerg has a real chance
to make his concerns known and that I'm not missing something.
Joerg did have a chance to make his concerns known and he did so. You
disagreed with his opinion. That's fine. I'm simply making a point that
you should have left the sentence with "that's not a valid reason"
out. To me, it sounds like a put down and that you won't recognize his
veto unless he comes up with a reason more to your liking.
Again, I don't happen to agree with his opinion either for much the same
reasons you stated. But from what I understand of the rules on vetoing
he has met his obligation and doesn't have to respond further if he
doesn't choose to.
Ralph
