community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: Veto! Veto?
Date Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:17:49 GMT
I think we should not confuse consensus with unanimity, because a -1 need not cure to a +1.
 The procedures are more nuanced than that, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making>,
and there are many ways a cooperating participant can express their concern.  

I do notice that there is confusion about "Consensus Approval" versus "Majority Approval"
because the description of "Consensus Approval" uses the "veto" word, <http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval>.
 

I have seen nothing that requires unanimity in the absence of the veto rule where it *specifically*
applies to commits in ASF principles.  

I notice that "unanimity" is absent as a term in what I read of ASF principles.  I assume
that it is intentional that such a clear term is not used.  I read this as allowing for consent
that is not full agreement but is an alignment, almost always with any -1 vote cured.  See
for example, the description of ways votes are expressed at <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>.

Another important feature of ASF principles that I see is that ASF is not preoccupied with
hypotheticals.  The ASF principles have behind them the presumption that people of good will
can work out matters in a non-adversarial manner and that the project communities are trusted
to do that.  It is what the ASF expects.  And it works.  We have been told repeatedly in this
thread how extremely rare it is for it to be otherwise and the feared hypothetical actually
arising.

It is good to stop fretting over hypotheticals and simply operate from good will.  If something
unfortunate arises, it can be dealt with in whatever the actual context is.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre Smits [mailto:pierre.smits@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 01:02
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: Veto! Veto?

When it comes to people, consensus (acceptance by unanimity) is the best
thing to have. But if the ASF has as its principle that no vetoes are
allowed, how can it be the remit of a project's PMC have it as its policy?

Best regards,


Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:

> Le 22/03/2015 14:42, jan i a écrit :
>
>> On 22 March 2015 at 14:35, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  HI Bertrand,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification regarding
>>> http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html
>>>
>>> Shouldn't http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html then also
>>> explicitly
>>> reflect that vetoes aren't allowed when it comes to on- and ofboarding
>>> contributors as committer and PMC member? That would surely bring
>>> clarity.
>>>
>>>  I would be very unhappy with "aren´t allowed", that is something the
>> individual PMCs should decide !
>>
>
> Yes indeed that's PMCs 's remit; we just need to clarify the ASF default.
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
>> rgds
>> jan I.
>>
>>
>>  Best regards,
>>>
>>> Pierre Smits
>>>
>>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>>> Services and Retail & Trade
>>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>> bdelacretaz@apache.org
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Jacques Le Roux
>>>> <jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...Thanks for the clarification Bertrand, this was also unclear to me.
>>>>>
>>>> Should
>>>>
>>>>> we not amend the newcommitter page?..
>>>>>
>>>> That would be great, I don't have time right now myself.
>>>> -Bertrand
>>>>
>>>>


Mime
View raw message