3 ms·
The open letter states it was a single individual that was able to stonewall the process. It wasn’t about the PSF group as a whole that didn’t want to touch the
by jsmeaton 3y ago
The open letter states it was a single individual that was able to stonewall the process. It wasn’t about the PSF group as a whole that didn’t want to touch the decision. One person. I think the letter has a fairly good point that processes are broken if this is possible.
- ttyprintk 3y agoI have to guess that, based on the meeting minutes posted nearby, the one vote needed to reach 5/10 vote is what this is referring to. The minutes explain a high number of abstentions. The chair of the PSF board was one of the Zanzibar organizers, for example.
- cobertos 3y agoIt doesn't seem like it was so simple as the open letter puts it? From the boards blog post https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2023/10/september-october-board-votes.html https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2023/10/september-october-board... The first vote had 6 abstentions and 4 yes votes. The second vote had 10 yes votes and 1 abstention. It seemed there was enough outstanding information/questions for 6 total people to abstain, though perhaps 1 of those 6 was using it nefariously? Hard to say