Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKprHVb=3p5VopFt18DMpu9ivGhLq19sN5CrWwV=M-KCqWUBGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+96GG5jz8Pv=TW6WJM9OP9ch3nPV44HA3j-okgeFokacxcM3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+96GG6ospd++Lg7jJaYfU71XTL-RHtP1gL0TOP-cTTiXvijMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<50E59A16.3030201@widodh.nl>
	<CA+96GG6ifZmdLsWT2SxBknE4gM1T-7D0xh905TdsCf=kqWnOng@mail.gmail.com>
	<F4395F97-116E-418B-AFCD-DEE3ECC9C8F1@citrix.com>
	<CA+96GG4sCnFCMdm2u5AFg3MWEtGWXiiT+03pHc7xDkh1u-csyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<6203F3A4-2524-494D-B6B1-32FD4E93D11A@citrix.com>
	<CA+96GG7EcsDJpC5h_NPZsms2n5wNE4oVVGt3maB8JfPTBGursQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKprHVbogt6FWhAx0=i1oUiT6WvYKUZkQ6TGv3M_eYxtQnM4YQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+96GG6fTWK9PA1pyKunOEqyJvr8MayC+6fHKcHOwBkuENWb7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKprHVZ2ZwM+ETGOjZG1V0Gd1VCf3Pvw+NH6em+BVr0nXXT4gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+96GG7d2MkaD7OjFPsEz2TiMsjeHZWpfBCLLVJt+q_gbzGGMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKprHVb=3p5VopFt18DMpu9ivGhLq19sN5CrWwV=M-KCqWUBGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:14:15 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CA+96GG4cveD47ODkMpSDkBU7G2ypDdDT26EUTsRs6cVXsGTvoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaws
From: Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
 <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>=
 wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.co=
m> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.=
com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@citrix.com>=
 wrote:
>>>>>>> +1 (binding)
>>>>>>> Thanks for the reply, casting binding vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Veteos
>>>>>>>>> Who can Veto? Timeframe when a veto is challenged?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "who" is anyone that can cast a binding vote on an issue.
>>>>>>>> Further, veto's are only applicable for "lazy consensus" style for=
mal
>>>>>>>> votes or technical decisions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I get your timeframe question though=85
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question was if someone challenges a vote by committing a bindi=
ng veto -1, and if their veto is challenged (say the reasons were not obvio=
us) and they are asked for reason(s) what should be the timeline for the pe=
rson to reply/communicate. (say a case of someone trolling, the question wa=
s about handling trolls :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I think that the first issue would be that we shouldn't have
>>>>>> trolls with binding votes... ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess it's a fair question though...  any thoughts on how to think
>>>>>> about that issue?  I'd say that by default, we're talking about the
>>>>>> normal "at least 72 hours" standard applying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand the 72 hour comment.
>>>>> Are you talking about period in which casting a veto is possible?
>>>>> 72 hours from what? 72 hours from a commit? From a review request?
>>>>> I'd guess that anytime up until a release is kicked out would be fine
>>>>> for a veto (technical reasons right, even if it is bad form)? (I've
>>>>> heard that from Greg Stein anecdotally, but can't find it documented
>>>>> anywhere.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The question was about "how long after the merits of a veto is
>>>> challenged should the community wait for a response from the person
>>>> vetoing.".  Basically, this is an edge case inside of an edge case
>>>> really.
>>>
>>> See my other response to Rohits question. Valid vetos are binding
>>> until withdrawn.
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>
>> Yup - after re-reading the foundation page, you're right.
>
> It's also stated that way in the bylaws you just put up for vote: Section=
 3.3
>

Actually, that section doesn't deal with the question that Rohit
raised really.  He's asking about the result of challenging a veto,
which is only addressed in the following:

"The validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who
has a binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with
the veto - merely that the veto is valid."

What isn't addressed is the question of how long a "veto challenge"
needs to remain "unconfirmed" (i.e.: nobody confirms it's validity)
before it's considered to be a "valid challenge" nullifying the veto,
or (alternatively) if there is an explicit action that would cause the
"veto challenge" to be confirmed.

Like I said, edge case within the edge case.  Personally, I'm not sure
that I care to try to plug this very small procedural hole...  but it
does exist.  Perhaps the problem is in the concept of a "challenge" in
it's entirety?

Anyone else have an opinion?

-chip