On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Juan Lang juan.lang@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Michael,
Not that I have any problems with our benevolent overlords, and not that I would likely achieve franchise with a scant 2 patches under my belt, but I can't help wondering how such a revolt would succeed seeing as the only method to achieve franchise-hood is controlled by the same people one would be revolting against.
You are new around here, we bottom-post ;)
Not true, of course. Alexandre is at the top of the list of contributors, naturally, but he doesn't constitute a controlling majority. (I'm discounting Jeremy's contributions, which is correct within tolerable error <snarky grin>.) --Juan
My bad, gmail makes it easy to make that mistake. ;)
As I said, our overlords are kind and benevolent and I'm sure that the mention of "evil plans" was simply a joke as such wise and noble developers could need harbor a malevolent thought. But, unless I've been misreading this mailing list, all patches have to go through our current enlightened leader before becoming part of the patch count in the wine tree. Not that the powers that be are susceptible to temptation, but lesser mortals might find that being more selective about whose patches are accepted during periods of discontent as an easy way to influence such a vote. Likewise, even if such a mortal didn't give into temptation, if the usurpers lose the vote they could always claim such impropriety did take place.
I only bring it up because tempers tend to run pretty hot over topics like ousting a project's leadership in open revolt and the last thing you want is the losing side posting ream after ream of git commit logs trying to show to that several of their supporters should have received franchise, but their patches were blocked to prevent it.
Rules like that should be designed to end a conflict with creating new sources of it. .