Maybe I shouldn't care, but I don't like these depictions :(
Ryan Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 10 September 2001 03:59, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Some people believe his veto is illegitimate -- that there is no technical
> > reason for vetoing the inclusion into modules/experimental.
>
> I have removed my veto. Although, I would point out that illegitimate veto
> or not, nobody in this group has ever gotten away with going through a veto.
> The only reason I have removed my veto is that it really looks like everybody
> was about to ignore it anyway.
Who do you think was just going to commit the code with your veto in
place? "Everybody" is definitely inaccurate. Without naming names it
becomes hard to ascertain out the truth.
> This whole thing just leaves me with a bad
> taste in my mouth. All I keep thinking, is that we are trying to spite RC by
> adding a different GZ module.
Maybe some folks want to spite RC. I dunno.
Another theory (I know this one to be true for at least one person :)
) is that some folks were in favor of a GZ module and there was only
one to look at properly and choose from, and it seemed reasonably
coded and could be easily shown to work with the current code.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
