Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 06:32:25 +0100: > On 04.11.2014 17:58, Branko Čibej wrote: > > You still have, and always will have, the option to raise a veto. With > > arguments. About specific problems in the code. I've asked you to do > > that uncountable times. So now please don't try to hide behind > > community decisions and raise that veto already, so that we can > > discuss it and bring this sad state of affairs to an end. > > Just to be clear: A vote would not in any way change your, or anyone > else's, opinion of the log-addressing feature; we'd get some +1 votes > and some -1 votes, and maybe the vote would pass or maybe not. But it > would not solve any real problems. > > Compare this to our backport voting, where -1 /is/ a veto, with all the > consequences and requirements to make it valid. > > That is why I said that a vote makes no sense for code that's already on > trunk; but a veto does.
Agreed, let's focus the disussion back on specific technical problems. "We should have a vote because we decided to" is correct, but it's one level too meta. We wanted a vote to solicit review; so, instead of calling a vote, let's cut to the chase and directly solicit review. I suggest that Stefan starts a [CALL FOR REVIEW] thread, pointing out that the feature is no longer a moving target, and asking (a) anyone with outstanding technical concerns to point them out; and (b) anyone who has reviewed the feature and believes it is release-quality, to state so explicitly. Such a thread would achieve what the vote was meant to achieve, I think. Daniel
