Withholding to prove a point isn't a particularly "adult" action either.
*Chuckle* One may call it "parent" from a Transactional Analysis standpoint, perhaps?
Multiple people have asked for it kindly over the years and nothing has come out of it.
Maybe so. And it just hasn't made it to that tipping point and made it in. It's what it is.
My own personal skin in the game = I've clinched it, and if it were added it would go into my .list immediately. I'm not too opposed to this route, and have expressed support (albeit
lukewarm support) for it in the past.
Lemme say this -- two people whose opinions I value and respect have advocated for this route. Find me 2 more and in it goes.
The concern he and a few others share about people performing actions unilaterally without full discussion is a valid criticism.
Maybe so, but that'd be one wholly unrelated to the Inner Loop.
A central facet of this project that we'd always do well to remember is that we can't make all of the people happy all the time. I believe one person said that in chat too.
When changing a chunk of data is on the agenda, it's possible that there'll be somebody out there who doesn't like the change. When such a change is done in order to keep with established standard practices, I won't run around the room asking everybody "How about this now, still agree with this?" I don't expect anyone else would, either.
Any rule could in theory change any time; absent it actually happening, we stick with those that are established.
I'll state this in plainer terms: withholding a route because of a personal grudge is nothing short of childish.
Call it that if you will. I'll refer to my two comments above in this message. I'd like to temporarily hold this out as a necessary learning opportunity.
Adding on: why couldn't you explain the merger issues on the forum last night instead of giving "it's too short" and similar arguments?
Hold it right there.
I said no such thing.
Others did, but not me. My response to others bringing up length was to attempt to clarify that length is is fact
not a deal-breaker for me -- including linking to a
forum post where I'd attempted to explain my criteria with more nuance.
With this, you now have joined in on this gaslighting as well -- attempting to tell me what my words and thought processes were when I know full well better.
(I have a log of the chat and can PM it upon request.)I found this individual's "photographic memory" especially egregious -- essentially telling me "Your own memory of your words and your knowledge of your own thought process is invalid; I get to tell you what you said." This kind of attitude is extremely problematic, and that extends well out beyond Internet road enthusiast forums into real life.
WRT leaving the chat when I did, I am under no obligation to continue hanging around somewhere when people become abusive.
I think I still do need to have a discussion with this person.
