My veto still stands, along with the seven technical
reasons given for it.


--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 25.02.2005 07:21:25 Glen Mazza wrote:
> <snip/>
> For the moment I'm not going to answer the veto
> itself. Your veto makes
> this situation a one against one. I have presented
> my reasons for the
> change and therefore, I request feedback from the
> rest of the committers
> on this matter even if it's just a short message.
> > Jeremias, I gave you a full, thorough, and
> > respectfully written explanation of the issues
> > involved.  Not only did you mostly ignore it, but
> in
> > your response you chose to use my earlier smaller
> > email in order to give others the impression that
> I
> > had nothing more to say.  This is terrible
> leadership
> > on your part--railroading a change without
> discussion
> > and refusal to discuss the change afterwords.  I
> > simply can't support this behavior, hence my veto.
> It may well be that I'm overreacting here. If that
> is so, then I'd like
> an honest feedback from additional members in the
> team. You must see
> that with your history I learned to treat your
> vetoes with caution
> because of the many times you changed a -1 to a +1
> later after a long
> discussion and a lot of power spent. There's tension
> between us two and
> that's bad. ATM I don't know how to resolve it. I
> tried to be as open as
> possible and to address any concerns you have. You
> have repeatedly
> brought very good points and for that I'm glad but
> you had to withdraw
> several vetoes after starting to realize that you
> were wrong and I've
> also seen behaviour from your part that I don't
> like. For example,
> starting sentences with "Mein Freund, bla bla" and
> then later accusing
> someone else in a different thread of being
> disrespectful. I didn't say
> anything about it then. (Also, apologies to Renaud
> for not speaking up.
> I didn't want to pour any oil into the fire at that
> time.) I tried to
> overlook that, but I have my limits. I sometimes
> wonder if you're not
> more of a blocker in this project than a pusher. I
> don't think I'm the
> only one thinking like this. You know what happend
> during the creation
> of the XML Graphics PMC.
> > BTW, letting yourself be known to the W3C by
> writing
> > to them on occasion would appear to be a smart
> move
> > for you--I don't know why you are fighting this.
> I'm not fighting this. I've had no compelling reason
> and spare time to
> do this, yet. The current issue is no reason for me
> to write anything to
> the WG.
> Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to