community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Date Wed, 05 Apr 2017 03:54:07 GMT
Running to the board every time there is a lack of consensus about a candidate is not appropriate
governance at Apache.  The fact that PMC members are afforded certain RIGHTS, including the
right to stop the train on a personnel promotion, is an important aspect of maintaining proper
checks and balances within the project itself.
Not to belabor the whole question about the role of diversity in this org, the fact is that
once a PMC reaches a size significantly greater than the original crop of developers, conflict
happens.  Sometimes it means a single person is not sufficiently aligned with the rest of
the team in terms of core values and principles about personnel promotions, and sometimes
the group is mired in groupthink and the sole voice of reason can effectively block bad decisions
from happening to the project.  Either way, diversity happens, and it's not always universally
positive for the collective wellbeing of the group.  At least not in the short run.
But most of the time, it's resolvable to the satisfaction of everyone in the project.  I've
never seen a veto issued as a permanent objection to a candidate, 99% of the time the vetoer
is simply saying "not yet, IMO".And that "not yet" opinion can stand according to the bylaws
of the larger projects all of whom have found constructive ways of restoring the group to
consensus decisions about personnel over the full spectrum of time.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017, 3:59:05 PM EDT, Niclas Hedhman <> wrote:That's
reassuring, but how does that relate to defaulting to vetoes for

Your statement about Board intervening could be said for Joe's/Ted's claim
about "letting the minority be heard" as well... and doesn't support or
undermine the use of vetoes for personnel.


On Apr 5, 2017 07:49, "Marvin Humphrey" <> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Niclas Hedhman <> wrote:
> > Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments
> > presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type
> > leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a
> > project.
> If a personnel vote is contended, and it doesn't show up in a Board
> report, the PMC Chair is not upholding their responsibilities and
> should be sacked. But even if it does get omitted, at least one
> Director is probably scanning each project's private list once per
> quarter and will likely flag the issue.
> Contended personnel votes are not common. The Board has enough
> bandwidth to review them and curtail egregious abuse.
> Marvin Humphrey
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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