community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:40:24 GMT
Yes of course!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I wonder, when voting in new ASF Members is there the discussion on each
> nominee to achieve consensus...
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits
> 
> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> OFBiz based solutions & services
> 
> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> 
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:marvin@rectangular.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 05:13
>>> To: dev@community.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
>>> 
>> [ ... ]
>>> 
>>> Most PMCs do not draft their own rules, and just use "at least 3 +1
>>> with no vetoes". CouchDB's majority-rule for committers is unusual. I
>>> hope that CouchDB's bylaws are not adopted as a template for others,
>>> as I believe that the rule on committer voting is counter to an
>>> important institutional tradition in Apache governance.
>>> 
>> [ ... ]
>> [orcmid]
>> 
>> I think there are common misunderstandings about where vetoes are allowed
>> (as opposed to No votes that need to be addressed as part of
>> consensus-seeking and community cultivation).
>> 
>> My understanding is that votes on *procedural*matters* have no vetoes by
>> default, but the effort to achieve consensus is always important in the
>> presence of Nays.  Treating nays as vetoes is often inappropriate because
>> it admits a form of bull-dozing in the negative.  Note that lazy consensus
>> is a form of unanimous consent, with no explicit requirement for 3 +1s;
>> here an objection is not a veto since lazy consensus is specifically an
>> if-no-objection proposal and objections are invited.
>> 
>> The only firm veto seems to be on commits.  And, of course, the 3 +1s
>> majority is *specifically* for eligible votes on release candidates (and
>> which cannot be vetoed).
>> 
>> The veto business (and the 3 +1s) seem to leak all over PMC practice
>> without ever being made an explicit policy as some sort of urban legend.
>> The fact that a podling mentor can veto actions (and also claim the myths
>> as policy) is probably confusing in that regard (if that is still the IPMC
>> practice).
>> 
>> - Dennis
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>> 
>> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org


Mime
View raw message