Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:49:08AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I remember that I had a discussion with Peter on this one ;-) since I had vetoed something I hadn't worked on and it got Peter upset...
When a veto is cast, it must be accompanied by technical justification and should also include an alternative proposal. I just don't think that people who aren't involved in a project at a code level can make valid technical justifications. Maybe that is the beauty of the system, since if non-contributors can't make valid technical justifications, then we don't have to worry about spurrious vetos. :)
I did supply technical justification, and IMHO the justification is still valid.
The fact is that I am involved in the Avalon Framework, and have used it for years, but not (yet) in Phoenix, which is built on the framework.
So I regard myself as being quite knowing of the Framework as it stands now, and the discussion was more about conceptual use of the framework in Phoenix, so it makes sense.
For me and other committers the veto made sense and was valid.
For others I shouldn't have done it because I haden't contributed to that part of the code.
Of course, as I said I didn't want to veto anyway, but I still think that formally I would have been able to.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------