Hector Martin

This is such an utterly nonsensical comparison I don't even know where to begin replying.

It's not a comparison, it was a question. Is the "ultimate decision power" card *invariably* a bad card to play?

The "ultimate decision power" card is a card that when played against your community's stated process results in at best a mass exodus and fork, at worst a discouraged and failing community. Especially when you don't even *participate* in said community as a developer any more.

A lone maintainer applied a change without consensus. What would you have him do in response?

Stallman isn't saying "revert the change until we reach consensus". He's saying "I don't give a flying fuck about consensus, I make the final decisions here and the joke stays."

Yet he didn't use the power he has to revert it himself ... Last sentence of your 2nd nugget reads "If you would like me to change it, it is up to you to convince me to change my decision." He's also not claiming to make *all* the final decisions ...

The point is that if the community is consensus-based he doesn't *get* to make overriding decisions, and yet he is doing so. Whether he actually reverts it himself is irrelevant; merely stating that it's his decision already stifles debate and takes over the consensus process.

You think *everything* should be open to debate though? I think that sometimes someone has to make a decision for the greater good and this particular incident is being unfairly misrepresented.