community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Veto! Veto?
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:35:04 GMT
In more-formal arrangements, do-overs must be initiated by someone whose vote was on the prevailing
side of the previous deliberation.  This is a way to avoid constant reconsideration in what
is more like an adversarial procedure.  The local government where I live is in a state of
perpetual reconsideration via voter initiatives.    

I think the idea for Apache is that if this situation arises, there is a breakdown in the
community.  We have some awful examples in my country of what happens when that becomes toxic
and legislatures would rather fight than govern.

After consensus, of course, reconsideration is always possible based on new information or
some other change in the state of affairs, unless there is some serious gaming going on. 

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre Smits [] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 07:00
Subject: Re: Veto! Veto?

I agree: consensus reached through discussion as far better than having to
do the (majority rule) vote. As with that, you -for sure - don't always get
what you want.

But it is - by far-the best alternative available to keep movement in a
project. And do-overs are possible.


Op dinsdag 24 maart 2015 heeft Greg Stein <> het volgende

> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Marvin Humphrey <
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > < <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Jacques Le Roux
> > > < <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> Who will update the
> > page?*
> > >
> > > I've done that, it now says "In general, committer elections are
> > > majority approval votes, as described on the Apache Voting Process
> > > page" with a link.
> >
> > That's not my understanding. It's not what I've heard from the Board
> > over the years, particularly from Greg. And I believe that it's for a
> > very good reason that personnel votes at Apache are not majority rule:
> > majority rule forces a result rather than creates consensus.
> >
> I dislike all voting, yes. Consensus through discussion is definitely a
> better approach.
> Concretely: I don't think there is any specific recommendation for how a
> PMC/community decides upon new committers. I've seen many mechanisms. In
> fact, within Apache Subversion, a committer can be added by any *singular*
> PMC member, no vote required (but their resulting commit rights are
> limited).
> For PMC Members, Roy has stated [on general@incubator, on 1/31/2012] that:
> "Well, it boils down to the fact that making someone a PMC member gives
> them veto power over the changes you make.  The only way that works
> socially is if everyone currently on the PMC agrees that person is a peer."
> >...
> Cheers,
> -g

Pierre Smits

Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade

View raw message