community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:45:56 GMT
A call to vote (without or without a preceding discussion) is a means to
achieve a result. Equally so is the Veto-principle regarding code changes,
and the consensus-achieving discussion.

What can be derived from the aforementioned 'Veto?/Veto!' discussion is
that equally alienating/destructive are discussions started where each one
only expresses a stand-in-the ground (I want to have my way, and you must
come about) and nobody works towards an acceptable compromise. Such
discussions tend to linger on... And what is more discussion than
discussions about persons?
It sets a tone that will pop up from time to time. And such doesn't help
regarding bringing diversity in. It tends to lead to strategic nominations
and invitations.

Having the must-have-consensus (or unanimity) approach applied to
everything doesn't work as it stalls moving forward (or beyond petty
sentiments).

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 3:22 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Applying the 'consensus', (or rather the 'every thing must be discussed
> > first') aspect everywhere is equally tyrranical.
> >
> > Hence the existence of the simple majority vote (50% of votes cast, + 1
> > with a min of 3 votes) for procedural matters. And onboarding new
> > committers, members, officers, etc. is a procedural matter. Unless, of
> > course, explicitly defined in bylaws.
> >
> > A -1 is nothing more than an expression of a viewpoint. Without all the
> > rhetoric!
>
> The issue w/ majority ruling is that it tends to self-perpetuate,
> and ensure that the majority continues to rule. It is ripe for
> abuse.
>
> If a PMC must "resort" to resolving things via "well, the majority ruled
> for it" then, imo, it is NOT a healthy and viable community, NOT one
> that will survive long term, NOT one which in in tune with the
> community.
>
> Consistent lack of being able to achieve consensus is a symptom of
> dysfunction
> and a severe warning sign. It is not to be ignored.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>

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