cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: [VOTE RESULTS] Make ProcessingException extend CascadingRuntimeException
Date Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:55:00 GMT
Ugo Cei wrote:

> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> Ugo Cei wrote:
>>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>>>> Should we interpret this as a veto?
>>>> It's not up to interpretation, as nobody can veto [VOTE]s.
>>>> Vetos can only be used to revert commits that should not happen 
>>>> because of problems they generate, and be accompanied with solid 
>>>> technical reasons.
>>> Thank you for the clarification. I did look around for an exhaustive 
>>> and unambiguous description of our voting procedures, but couldn't 
>>> find any. Do you have any pointers?
> Hmmm...
> "Under normal (non-lazy consensus) conditions, the proposal requires 
> three positive votes and no negative ones in order to pass; [...]
> For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal, but 
> -1 votes are vetos  and kill the proposal dead until all vetoers 
> withdraw their -1 votes."
> Doesn't this apply to this vote?

I knew you would ask ;-)

These rules are the ones that came out of HTTPD land, and reflect a 
codebase that changes very differently from ours. What you should really 
be looking at is:

We should have our own voting guidelines... where are they?

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message