cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <Ralph.Go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Vetoing (was [Result] [Vote] Java 5 as minimum JDK requirement)
Date Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:01:19 GMT
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> Now something about vetoing:
>
> According to 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
>
> "The rules require that a negative vote includes an alternative 
> proposal or a detailed explanation of the reasons for the negative vote.
>
> The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative 
> proposal that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the 
> concerns leading to the negative vote can be addressed.
>
> This process is called "consensus gathering" and we consider it a very 
> important indication of a healthy community."
>
> To me it seem to put a lot of emphasis on reaching a consensus. Right 
> now we have a veto that most of the community don't agree with. That 
> is far away from consensus and is IMO _not_ an acceptable situation 
> from a community health POV. This means that we have to continue to 
> work until we find a solution that we can get a consensus around.
In this I absolutely agree.  As Reinhard reminded me vetoing is 
something that is very serious and should be used sparingly.

 From this standpoint I think we should be even more specific than the 
first sentence. I would reword it to read "The rules require that a 
negative vote includes a detailed explanation of the reasons for the 
negative vote and an alternative proposal or a statement defining what 
would be required for the negative vote to be rescinded"

Ralph

Mime
View raw message