Re: consesnus

On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 00:32 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:26:24AM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > 
> > For me, the most disheartening thing about this whole discussion has
> > been the majority vote thing.  So early into the discussion of this, we
> > had a rally to a 50% vote, something we haven't done before.
> 
> Not true. We have had majority votes winning before, over quite
> strong opposition, as I well recall. I'm sure you do too.

Can you please cite me an example as regards our development process?

I can't recall it - the major examples I can think of (and all were, as
far as I know by consensus) were:
 - autobuild
 - GIT
 - SVN (but you may have been on an aircraft ;-)
 - The merged master tree
 - The merged build system
 - the statement on the role of waf/autoconf

Even outside our development process, I can't think of any issue, even
private to to the team that has proceeded on anything less than
overwhelming support.

Finally, you will notice I didn't demand consensus, but I did ask that
we first work out why that consensus isn't possible, and work on
something that is at least workable or acceptable, if not desirable to
all.  

If we are at a point where we are fighting for a proposal to get or be
defeated by a 50/50 vote, then we have lost focus on the far more
important issue: being the Samba Team. 

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org