Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
From: Joseph Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:02:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Vetoes for New Committers??
Message-Id: <79BC5875-E083-4E0F-905A-74AA5DA101F9@yahoo.com>
References: <CADmm+KenmGd7wgH0dSE+j2sLaPY8buG=RrHhTWk++uMpUpAEVQ@mail.gmail.com> <C0B37C50-83AB-4990-8307-B8BDC9703DD4@yahoo.com> <CADmm+KdwOhZYpAE56v1cck1Up4=hFyK=bxaOkNjsitt5nxfi3g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADmm+KdwOhZYpAE56v1cck1Up4=hFyK=bxaOkNjsitt5nxfi3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@community.apache.org
archived-at: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 03:03:15 -0000

Trust me niclas, you would be singing a very different tune if you believed s=
omething like that were happening in a project you were working on and you w=
ere a member of the minority powerless to put a halt to it.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
>=20
> Well, isn't that a weak argument, since said company already have majority=

> and with vetoes can also block to loose such majority. If this happens, I
> would assume that someone in the PMC would bring it to Board's attention t=
o
> look into the matter, as the only course of action against a malevolent
> company taking control of a project, no matter which voting system you
> apply.
>=20
> Cheers
> Niclas
>=20
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Joseph Schaefer <
> joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>=20
>> The downside to majority rule when it comes to personnel voting is that i=
t
>> can lead to a situation where a company having a majority on the pmc can
>> increase their majority by voting in additional employees without the
>> minority having any way to provide a check on that exercise of power.  Ye=
s
>> this has come up in the past.
>>=20
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>=20
>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Hi,
>>> on https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html#new-committer-process
>> it
>>> describes the process of bringing in a new committer for a "typical
>>> project".
>>>=20
>>> But in the "Discussion" it speaks of "3 +1 and no vetoes"... Is it reall=
y
>>> "typical" that projects use vetoes for new committers? I can't recall
>>> seeing that anywhere, not saying it is incorrect, but asking whether it
>>> really is "typical".
>>>=20
>>> Perhaps we should provide links to a handful of well-known project's
>>> processes, to both give a template for projects to work with as well as
>>> different approaches.
>>>=20
>>> Anyone has any opinion on this matter?
>>>=20
>>> Cheers
>>> --
>>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>>> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>>=20
>>=20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java


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