consesnus

[simo]

On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 06:46 -0700, Kai Blin wrote:
> On 2012-10-17 05:18, simo wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 13:16 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> >> Sure, but nobody objects to discussing. :-)
> >> 
> >> It's the vote now before we discussed attitude that irritates 
> >> people.
> > 
> > Quite sensitive people here ... It didn't irritate me, actually I 
> > do not see what's irritating there. If everyone +1 we'd have it 
> > already implemented and nobody would be irritated.
> > 
> > Now it happened that not everybody agreed, and they through -1s as 
> > well as a tantrum.
> 
> Ok, I change my mind. It's not the voting that is irritating, it's the
> fact that bringing up concerns is constantly belittled as "semantics"
> or throwing a tantrum.
> 
> That really annoys the heck out of me. If I happen to disagree with
> the proposal, apparently I'm a whiny, progress-and-good-code-hating
> self-centred jerk. Way to go on a technical debate.

You disagreed and we discussed and the proposal got changed, and amended
multiple times and a new vote was prospected with amended changes. I
don't think anybody said that discussing and changing the proposal on
technical merits (and there are/were) was whining ...

I think this thread is a bit whiny though, there is nothing technical,
only a complaint that voting is somehow unfair, funny how I never seen
complaining about voting when the complainers happened to agree with the
majority. Funny also how I've not seen other complain in the same vein
when they were minority and didn't agree with a vote, but respected it.

Simo.

P.S: just to be annoying, the subject  is also misspelled, and that is
annoying too, should I throw a tantrum about grammar? SCNR :)

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>