On 1/20/07, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
For me the point is that we had a VOTE.. Everyone who voted should done this only if he think the stuff he voted for is correct and if he not voted he should accept any fix. After the VOTE we had a result and want to commit the fix. Now after we have a clear result the discuss start again.. We should do what the majory voted for... thats how it should work.
the trunk is CTR (commit then review) so the vote was an attempt to gauge consensus about a controversial measure. my reading of the results is that there is no consensus: rather the majority are agnostic with two minority polarised positions. IMO this is harmful if both sides are still committed to developing a consensus, then the best approach would be continue to analyze the problem and look for superior technical or social solutions. the alternative is for one of the twos to go forward and commit their fix to trunk. this seems likely to result in both solutions being veto'd (neither gained 3 +1's) and the next release shipping with the problem unresolved. all i'm asking is that all those with polarised positions take a step back, take a deep breath and think about users. the right thing to do is to ship the next release with both fixes but to patch only on the release branch. the search for a superior solution can then happen on trunk. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
