On 20 May 2016, at 2:38, Paul Jakma wrote:
[…]
- "resolve issues at a faster rate", by which you really mean "Ignore
having to address the former".
On unanimity, I disagree with you. If we regularly have patches being
pushed through by the vote of the 51+% of contributors over objections
of others, we're going to run into really deep problems working
togehter.
We'd be much better working hard at engaging and trying to keep each
other happy, than trying to come up with simple majority voting
structures.
Also, there can be some issues I simply am not prepared to devolve to
simple majority votes. There are some things that are red-lines for
me. I can well accept that others have red-lines too, and in general
try to respect that (do you know how many patches I never got in? :)
). Unanimous agreement on inclusion (or rollback to a last 'good'
state in some edge cases) is the only way to accommodate that.
Can you clarify?
Is the “simple majority” the issue for these “some issues” and
it could be solved for these issues with a super majority (i.e. 67%)
or do you need/want unanimous agreement on these?
If you think it needs a “unanimous agreement”, then could you come
up with an example of an issue where you see the need for?
- Martin
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
