On 31. 12. 25 09:51, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 01:45:00PM +0100, Evgeny Kotkov via dev wrote:
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.
You mean these questions? —
Well, I think it may not be as simple as it seems to you. Who
decided that we should follow the process you're describing? Is
there a thread with a consensus on this topic? Or do you insist on
using this specific process because it's the only process that seems
obvious to you? What alternatives to it have been considered?
Well, in order:
1. The Subversion Corporation.
2. Yes.
3. Not evaluated due to short-circuiting boolean operators ;-)
4. Refer to the list archives [email protected].
And that helps us how? If the correct answers had been [A-D] below
rather than [1-4] above, that wouldn't have changed the fact that dev@
must make decisions on-list by consensus, or the Board would have
something to say.
I agree, but "design discussion" can also mean "review of the branch
that has an experimental implementation of a solution to a problem that
was identified on dev@ by consensus". There's ample precedent for that.
From the past and current discussion, it seems to me that your stance
is that you won't review the branch until you (well, "we") agree to a
specific implementation design on dev@. You're entitled to your opinion,
but I think you're setting an unreasonably high bar. Sometimes a patch
is worth a thousand mails.
Now, it's possible that the implementation on the branch(es) is
insufficiently well documented or thought out, or has other flaws. The
thing to is to review it and post your concrete objections here on dev@.
But you already know that.
-- Brane
