community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Veto! Veto?
Date Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:05:50 GMT
On Monday, March 23, 2015, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com> wrote:

> The principle/policy/rule of the ASF regarding code changes is very
> explicit, well documented and unambiguous. Can a project's PMC have another
> methodology in place while being part of the ASF? I guess not.


not another but always a tougher (e.g. 6+1 no -1).

>
> Consensus with respect to on and off boarding of people is nice, as it
> expresses unanimity. And I, as I expect it to be for all, am all for it.
> But to have it as an requirement would be a show stopper.
>
> Would it be ok for the ASF if there were a project under its umbrella, that
> would say: that majority voting principle you for procedural issues is
> nice, but for us - when it comes to people - we veto
> promotors/speakers/book writers to participate in our project with
> privileges (commit right, PMC membership)? Or, that it vetoes people from
> France (this is example, I have nothing against people from France or even
> with the French nationality)?
>
> If the community wants it like that, then there is consensus. It is not
the task of ASF to police the communities.

We must be very careful only to make ASF wide rules where it is really
needed e.g. our release policy is there for legal reasons.

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 Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:20 AM, jan i <jani@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > On 23 March 2015 at 09:02, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> > >
> >
> > I think it is a matter of wording, I do not think it is a ASF Principle
> > (actually not sure how that relates to "policy") that veto is not
> allowed,
> > Consensus is the ASF Principle. We all want to avoid Vetos, for many good
> > reasons, but that it not the same as not being allowed.
> >
> > As a Foundation we try to have very few rules and policies, and let the
> > communities handle how they want to do it, this here is surely
> > a case where we do not a foundation wide rule.
> >
> > I would have no problem, if the wording on the page was something like
> "it
> > is recommended not to use Veto"
> >
> > Pierre@ maybe just for my understanding, why would ASF be better, if we
> > make this rule foundation wide, instead of leaving it up to
> > the single community ?
> >
> > 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 3:17 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> > > jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Le 22/03/2015 14:42, jan i a écrit :
> > > >
> > > >> On 22 March 2015 at 14:35, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > 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 <javascript:;>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Jacques Le Roux
> > > >>>> <jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com <javascript:;>>
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
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message