On 9/21/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 21, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Costin Manolache wrote: > > > > > Let's assume CTR ( lazy consensus - i.e. assume everyone agrees ) - what > if it > > turns that the consensus is lacking, not on the technical validity of > the
Certainly the rest of the community out there in addition to the > PMC determines a lot of that. In which point, I think the > majority would rule. Then I guess we are in agreement :-) Just propose a polite way to move from the commit for a controversial change ( i.e. when someone feels strongly it's going to the wrong direction, even if technically code is ok ) to the majority and 3+1 process - and we're done. As you know - some people are complaining that veto is abused ( and that's right ), many Rs turn into flame wars and get personal - so the issue is how to avoid a technical code discussion for a non-technical or subjective issue. Costin
