Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 85113 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2002 14:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Jul 2002 14:35:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 2196 invoked by uid 97); 24 Jul 2002 14:36:04 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 2151 invoked by uid 97); 24 Jul 2002 14:36:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 2118 invoked by uid 98); 24 Jul 2002 14:36:02 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) X-Authentication-Warning: costinm.sfo.covalent.net: costin owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:33:22 -0700 (PDT) From: costinm@covalent.net X-X-Sender: costin@costinm.sfo.covalent.net To: Ant Developers List cc: pmc@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: Vetoes are void? was Re: [VOTE] target-less build files - counting results In-Reply-To: <200207242004.20806.peter@apache.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > So far I have have vetoed the change and given reasons which other people have > supported. You have failed to convince me to lift the veto. Thus under > current apache rules the change needs to be reverted. At least thats my > understanding of http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html This was a [VOTE] - not a commit or code change, but a plan on how the next release should behave. I strongly believe that it's the majority of commiters who should decide what and how is released - not a single individual to control it ( by blocking everything ). > However you and Costin have decided that no vetos count anymore - only > majority votes. Because any veto enacts a "revolution" and then that > revolution is accepted by majority - thats the reasoning I believe? Fact is that the majority of commiters: - can release anything it wants. ( release rules ) - can use any codebase it wants. ( revolution rules ). That's pretty clear. Vetoes with reason and a proposed soultion are perfectly valid for code changes - but the current rules are pretty clear IMHO that the majority of votes can override this via revolutions. If someone makes a commit - it can be vetoed. If a new features is decided by the majority - you can veto any implementation ( as long as you provide a better one or enough reasons on why is bad ) > If so I think this needs to be decided by a far larger community as I don't > believe your interpretation is common to the rest of jakarta. If this is your > interpretation then I will take it to the general/pmc lists and discuss it > there and see if the jakarta rules can be changed. I don't think any rule have to be changed - but made clearer. I think the veto is greatly abused - you veto changes in the main branch while your revolution does similar things. > However what I do want for is this be consistent. If one veto is ruled to be > invlaid then all vetoes become invalid become invalid. I think a veto on a plan doesn't even exist - it's not a veto, but a negative vote in a majority voting. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: