Re: TC voting and amendment procedure
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: TC voting and amendment procedure"):
> No, I have not seen any reason to overrule the maintainers in this
> entire thread. I don't see how I could have indicated that any more
> clearly than I already have. [...]
I thought that in your message of 2 Dec 2007 11:13:30 +1000,
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20071202011330.GA16744@blae.erisian.com.au>, you were
proposing with your approval a wording that implied such an agreement.
Evidently I misunderstood you - sorry.
But in that case it's not clear to me what the point was of that
message. We were already aware of your view about the need for the
bug to be RC in order to justify overruling, and your view that that
decision about RCness and pushing to etch should be made now by the
TC, and most of us had already expressed our disagreement with you
clearly enough.
Perhaps we have different ideas about the proper way for TC members to
behave after our positions have become clear on the main question at
hand, and the main substantive questions have been fully explored. (I
hope everyone will now agree that the main substantive questions
regarding getaddrinfo are now as fully explored as they are likely to
get.)
I think there comes a point where we should all accept that we aren't
going to convince each other, and in the case of the main question
about getaddrinfo that was reached some time ago.
Thus further argumentation to try to change each others' minds is both
rude and unproductive. I haven't been trying to convince you to
change your mind because I feel that everything useful on both sides
has already been said plenty of times already. Would you please do
the same, for all of our sakes ?
There is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree in that sense. After
all, we have a supposedly civilised and functional voting system so
that we can reach decisions even when not everyone is of one mind.
If you as a dissenter want to help participate in the working out of
the details of the resolution which I am proposing and which it seems
likely will pass, then that is of course absolutely fine. But when
you do you should accept, at least for the sake of argument, the basis
of that resolution, including the mindset that its proposers have.
That is to say, it is fine for you to help ensure that our proposed
resolution is clear, that it accurately reflects our intent, that it
doesn't have unintended consequences or lacunae, and so on.
But I think we are beyond the point where you can reasonably attempt
to `help' our proposal by changing it into something you agree with.
Other TC members have the opportunity to indicate that they agree with
you, rather than me, by voting in favour of your alternative proposal.
Indeed, you will see that I included your proposal on the ballot
unchanged and un-argued-with even though I strongly disagree with it
for the reasons I put in my rationale. It didn't seem fruitful to me
to try to get further clarification from you about exactly what you
thought it meant, or to try to improve it into something I could live
with.
Thanks,
Ian.
Reply to: