-1, I would need replacement text to establish how we deal with disagreeing with a commit.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The current line is unacceptable. It can also be implied that every > single > > code change needs to be up for review before it can be committed. It had > > been contested in the last vote with no clarity on what it meant, leaving > > others questioning whether it should not be there. > > > > Yet, in spite of that, it was implored that we should pass the bylaws > > anyway and then amend after the fact. Given the turn around on bylaw > > changes and the time it would take to sort this matter out, I decided > it's > > best to take out this potentially malicious line from our bylaws until > > something a more sound can be put in place. > > > > > > John, > > I respectfully disagree. AFAICT from the previous thread, everyone agreed > with you that the bylaw was not meant to imply that commits had to be up > for review. I, for one, would not support a rogue committer attempting to > leverage that line to claim we need to be RtC. I'm reasonably certain the > rest of the community would do the same. > > While we had consensus that _something_ needed to be done with this part of > the bylaws, I don't think we had reached it on what the appropriate change > was. It isn't productive for us to approach the bylaws as a coercive > bludgeon that we must guard against abuse. We're a community first and > foremost and we need to approach things with assumed good intent. > > -- > Sean >
