Ooops, I missed copy pasting this reply into my previous email: On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:21 PM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm realizing in retrospect this leaves ambiguity > > > Another misreading at least of the *intent* of these clauses, is that > they were to ensure that concerns about a *design and approach* are > listened to, and addressed to the satisfaction of interested parties. It > was essentially codifying the project’s long term etiquette around pieces > of work with either competing proposals or fundamental concerns. It has > historically helped to avoid escalation to vetoes, or reverting code after > commit. > > It wasn’t intended that *any* reason might be invoked, as seems to have > been inferred, and perhaps this should be clarified, though I had hoped it > would be captured by the word “reasonable". Minor concerns that haven’t > been caught by the initial review process can always be addressed in > follow-up work, as is very common. > > Wouldn't you expect such concerns to at least partially now have been covered in the CEP discussion, up front? I would expect at most at this stage someone could validate that the implementation follows the CEP. But I wouldn't expect a debate on competing approaches at this stage. henrik -- Henrik Ingo c. +358 40 569 7354 w. www.datastax.com <https://www.facebook.com/datastax> <https://twitter.com/datastax> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/datastax/> <https://github.com/datastax/>
