On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:33:04PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > "Roy T. Fielding" wrote: > > > > A showstopper, aside from a yet-to-be-reverted veto, can be > > moved from one section of STATUS to another by the RM (or > > anyone, for that matter) whenever they want. It is only > > a showstopper if we ALL agree it is. The category only exists > > to simply remind us of what needs to be fixed. > > Not codified, and certainly not clear: > > > Showstoppers > > Showstoppers are issues that require a fix be in place > > before the next public release. They are listed in the STATUS > > file in order to focus special attention on the problem. An > > issue becomes a showstopper when it is listed as such in > > STATUS and remains so by lazy consensus. > > 'Consensus' means vetos apply, as opposed to 'majority.'
I think the term "consensus" as defined in our guidelines is not appropriate for showstoppers. The overriding issue here is how we make releases. In that respect, a showstopper is something that would prevent a majority approval for a release. It is difficult to manage that concept in the STATUS file, since that means that showstoppers are really the inverse of a majority approval vote. As long as there are more people in favor of making it a showstopper, it shall remain a showstopper. IMO, this logic was applied to all recent showstopper rearranging. -aaron
