SJS <[email protected]> escribió:
Thanks for your comments,
[chop]
> It is just me being conservative and trying to tell people what I think
> comes close to the edge of acceptance.
Who set the edge? Can more people change the edge?
The edge is based on the aesthetic sensibilities of the curator; better
arguments are the way to change the edge, not the tyranny of the majority.
But, if the arguments of the majority are dropped, could we talk about
the tyranny of the curator?
If you're not going to have a small team handle the duties and argue
among themselves, then you've got to rely on a single curator.
Perhaps the small team is not invited to handle the duties.
You can always fork the repo and run it yourself in parallel. That's the
ultimate open-source solution to "I'm unhappy with the curation of $project."
Yes, but this is the argument of the children that has the game and
set the rules. My game, my rules.
There are a lot of project and forks for this reason. Many
applications to do the same. Is bad be a little bit open?
[snip]
> And in this particular case you mention I said the patch would be
> accepted if it was not compiled by default.
I know what you said. But, why (only) you can say what is accepted or
not? Could you accept a patch in the git that you don't agree with?
You're talking about forcing him to discard his aesthetic?
The question is, is their project or is our project? If wmaker is
their project, he can do everyting. If is our project, perhaps he
should hear us. Please, choose, is our or yours? That is important for
me. And the previous question was not replied, could you accept that
patch?
kix
--
SJS
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)
http://www.kix.es/
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
