On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Joe Orton wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 03:34:10PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> Regardless of anyone else's opinion, the addition or deletion of a >> new API to our product is a technical change that can be vetoed. >> Likewise, the API being an incomplete abstraction that isn't >> needed in httpd is a valid technical reason to veto it even if >> it had once been in apr-util. >> >> Other than the convoluted history of this particular argument, >> I don't see any reason for further frustration. Revert the commit. > > Yet again: if the objection is to extending the exported mod_ldap API, > that objection can be resolved without wholesale revert; most of the > stuff added does not need to be exposed in the API, it was just done for > consistency.
The objection can only be resolved by convincing the person who has objected to change *their* opinion or by removing the thing being objected to. The time for convincing has expired -- let's move on. > I do not understand using "incomplete abstraction" as motivation for > veto, because mod_ldap's API was already an incomplete abstraction. If > this was OK before, it is not reason for veto now. The API was moved to *this* project and all of the names were changed. It is, effectively, a new public API for this project. > We are doomed to revisit this argument time and again if we avoid > actually discussing the technical issues. The whole point of having a set of voting guidelines is to avoid having a discussion about process which is colored by the particular issue being discussed and to avoid having discussions about technical issues which become poisoned because of perceived unfairness in the way people's opinions are being respected. Remove the process issue first and then the technical issues can be resolved one at a time as technical issues. ....Roy
