Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Fine. I would have started the vote earlier, but it's your code so I'll
respect your choice. And it's good to give people more time to think (not to
We had a committer veto. Why are having a vote? A -1 from a
commmitter is not something we vote on.
Vetos must be based on technical grounds and can be withdrawn, see
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
(no, I haven't seen a clearly stated "technical ground" in Kay's mail).
Due to the exceptional amount of posts in this thread, a proper vote is
now the clearest way out, and in case of opposition it will allow to
record clearly what the technical reason was.
The patch needs to be reverted, now.
Please do not go on and revert it now, and please do not escalate the
problem again (this friendly advice applies to Pedro too). It is a
trivial issue, with no side effects on the rest of the code, and it will
be quickly solved by voting (where a -1 from a committer with a clearly
stated "technical ground" counts as veto) well before a release, or even
a beta version, containing it is distributed.
Overstating the problem or insisting on this, no longer fruitful,
discussion would only drain resources from more important topics. I
recommend that we put community over code, suspend this discussion, take
a final vote when Pedro calls it and respect its outcome, whatever it is.
Regards,
Andrea.
