cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <>
Subject Re: [Vote] Java 5 as minimum JDK requirement
Date Wed, 16 Aug 2006 06:41:08 GMT

Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> On 8/15/06, Ralph Goers <> wrote:
>> Peter Hunsberger wrote:
>> > Sorry, in my book that's not a valid reason.
>> I think it is inappropriate for you to judge whether his reason is valid
>> or not.
> If one does not view a veto as valid then one has to challenge it.  To
> do otherwise would not be taking your position as a committer
> seriously.
His veto was challenged.  A reason was stated.  Now if the reason for 
the veto was "the moon is not in alignment with the stars" it would be 
reasonable to state that the reason isn't valid.  But the reason given 
was nothing of the kind.  That doesn't mean you can't try to convince 
him to change his mind using the two paragraphs that followed.  But the 
implication of the statement is that you don't recognize his -1 as being 
valid, when in fact it is.  You simply don't agree with it.
>> Furthermore, his veto won't be overturned by such a statement.
>> Although I agree with your argument below, I'm also not in favor of
>> questioning someone endlessly about a veto.
> Ralph, I'm trying to be fair and ensure that Joerg has a real chance
> to make his concerns known and that I'm not missing something.
Joerg did have a chance to make his concerns known and he did so. You 
disagreed with his opinion. That's fine.  I'm simply making a point that 
you should have left the sentence with  "that's not a valid reason" 
out.  To me, it sounds like a put down and that you won't recognize his 
veto unless he comes up with a reason more to your liking. 

Again, I don't happen to agree with his opinion either for much the same 
reasons you stated. But from what I understand of the rules on vetoing 
he has met his obligation and doesn't have to respond further if he 
doesn't choose to.


View raw message