<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1rv5ajnhgrc0wq3ulrk6tcjkgsaq8h4rs5rtsvrnklz4j0lw40egqphc5wt</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-07-22&#xA;📝 Original message:&gt;default in case of controversy is no change.&#xA;&#xA;I think the result of this would probably be that no controversial &#xA;changes ever get implemented via this process so others will hard fork &#xA;the code and eventually make this process irrelevant.  Since you need &#xA;close to 100% agreement the irrelevance would have to come as a step &#xA;function which will manifest itself in a rather disruptive manner.&#xA;&#xA;The question is really is this hark-forking disruption worse than coming &#xA;up with some kind of process to handle controversial changes.&#xA;&#xA;Russ</html></oembed>