Because the guiding committee can decide to call a vote and stop all discussion about the subject. In this case, he thought that 3 days of debate over a decision was not enough, but that's what the committee called for. Joey had some ideas he wanted to present before the vote, but the way the committee acted prevented him from presenting his opinion.
I believe it's about referring technical decisions in subgroups to project-wide political votes (general resolutions = GR).
I can see why trying to keep everything as a pure technical meritocracy is appealing, but I don't think it's realistic. Libre software is inherently political.
And yet, its only happened basically once in 20 years, due to a project wide coup lead by the desktop environment people basically taking over the distro.
I don't want to leave the mistaken impression that every time someone does a git commit to debian-policy or lintian that a GR is auto-proposed. Virtually all historical changes to Policy or TC "cabal" decisions have been extremely calm and compared to the recent coup. Debian minus systemd is pretty calm and well behaved. If anything, cracks are forming because its such an earthquake compared to all previous debate and discussion.
