On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 01:45:00PM +0100, Evgeny Kotkov via dev wrote: > I'd like to remind that the meaningful discussion of your veto ended twice > with my emails from 8 Feb 2023 and Jan 18 2024 that had direct questions > to you and were both left without an answer — for a year and for two years, > respectively.
You mean these questions? — > > Well, I think it may not be as simple as it seems to you. Who > > decided that we should follow the process you're describing? Is > > there a thread with a consensus on this topic? Or do you insist on > > using this specific process because it's the only process that seems > > obvious to you? What alternatives to it have been considered? Well, in order: >>> 1. The Subversion Corporation. >>> >>> 2. Yes. >>> >>> 3. Not evaluated due to short-circuiting boolean operators ;-) >>> >>> 4. Refer to the list archives of [email protected]. And that helps us how? If the correct answers had been [A-D] below rather than [1-4] above, that wouldn't have changed the fact that dev@ must make decisions on-list by consensus, or the Board would have something to say. Daniel >>> A. Bill Shakespeare. >>> >>> B. No; he lost a game of Minesweeper. >>> >>> C. I'm ever so glad you ask! I insist on using this specific process >>> because Jeanne d'Arc came to me in a vision and said I should. >>> Jeanne—she said I could call her Jeanne—she was so nice, and it was >>> such an honour, and my brother who has coeliac was over and asked… >>> >>> D. Relicensing under Microsoft's EULA and appointing OtherBill BDFL.
