> >> Just as a matter of curiosity, whom are you representing under the > >> term *we*? > > > > The Avalon team as a whole. > > And just so I understand, where does this authority to represent the > interests and opinions of the Avalon team as a whole come from?
The vote that made Berin Chair. He's not "just a committer", although it is in line with most leadership training to act as if it were that way. Remember that the Chair is a "benevolent dictator"? But that's not how it is being used now. The line that started it was: > No it isn't. If you recall I had two objections before we could > release Merlin. OK, so Berin has two objections before he thinks it is OK for the Avalon Community to release Merlin. I see nothing that implies a position of authority here that is above the authority of a committer. As committers we *are* responsible for releases. This is both a moral and a legal thing. If a committer thinks that he can't sign off on a release (which he is responsible for due to being committer) then he has all the right in the world to raise the issues that prevents a sign- off. Get those two issues on the table (they already are) and get on with solving them. Frankly, unless issues with Merlin can be solved in a civil manner (and at the moment that appears to be too much to ask), I see no reason to release Merlin as an Avalon product, as it is clear that Merlin and its author isn't part of the Avalon community other than in a very formal way (it is hosted on Apache servers and you have committ privs). /LS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
