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 20:05:50 GMT
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
>
>

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