From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 12:08:07 -0500
Message-ID: <20181115170807.GB20617@thunk.org>
References: <875zx2vhpd.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
 <CAKOZuetdgk1QYhx1538-98rFpogMin=8DkPnCtU9_=ip23Vk7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181113193859.GJ3505@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <5853c297-9d84-86e5-dede-aa2957562c6b@arm.com>
 <CAKOZuesta_V=doXsVLc2E6WCQvywdur3F+u2pFKaPN+CEQd+ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811141741000.16571@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
 <CAKOZuetCGCfNdJ2QM0phu3_3Q29f5Yeh=NHiM_A9MhHsCjK48A@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811141840140.16571@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
 <20181115053026.GA20617@thunk.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811151628490.27351@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811151628490.27351@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>, Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>, Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>, "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:29:43PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2018, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> 
> > That's great.  But is it or is it not true (either de jure or de
> > facto) that "a single active glibc developer" can block a system call
> > from being supported by glibc by objecting?  And if not, under what is
> > the process by resolving a conflict?
> 
> We use a consensus-building process as described at 
> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus>.

So can a single glibc developer can block Consensus?

I've chaired IETF working groups, where the standard was "Rough
Consensus and Running Code".  Strict Consensus very easily ends up
leading to the Librem Veto which did not serve the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth well in the 17th-18th centuries....

							- Ted