On 06.11.2014 00:03, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > 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.
I couldn't agree more. -- Brane
