Jeremias, My veto still stands, along with the seven technical reasons given for it.
Advertising
Glen --- 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 > >
