Daniel Shahaf <[email protected]> writes: > My veto there was a rather rare beast: I wasn't vetoing a design decision > ("This should use a port number higher than 1024 so it doesn't need to be > launched as uid 0") but a design process, or rather, the lack of > /on-list/ /consensus-based/ design process.
The lack of using an appropriate design process in this case may be subjective, as indicated in [1]. You also insisted that we should use a specific form of the design process [2]. But I don't recall a thread with consensus on the fact that we should be using it, and my question about it was left unanswered. > Anyway, looking up the dates reminded me we should get started on organizing > the veto's third birthday party. I'd like to remind that the meaningful discussion of your veto ended twice with my emails from 8 Feb 2023 and Jan 18 2024 that had direct questions to you and were both left without an answer — for a year and for two years, respectively. [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/4bnwxz37jkjlltry425kd3qovygcvrgk [2]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/3xsvcs278slqyd25dkg7ztmr2lfp76xv Regards, Evgeny Kotkov
