incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <>
Subject Re: veto stuff (was: Code ownership)
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:34:16 GMT

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --On Thursday, November 7, 2002 2:51 AM +0100 Stephen McConnell 
> <> wrote:
>> Ok, so if I'm the subject of a veto that I consider is invalid on
>> that grounds that no rational justification was provided, what
>> should one do to resolve the situation.  According to Jakarta law
>> the rationale "my girfriend has a headache" is a rationale - but is
>> it an acceptable rationale?  As soon as you enter a situation where
>> a veto is irrationale - your in undefined territory.
> In HTTP Server, AIUI, a veto can be 'challenged' and at least one 
> other voting member must agree that the *technical reason is valid*, 
> then the veto stands.  Otherwise, it is nullified.  This acts as a 
> safeguard against blantantly invalid vetos.  (Not entirely sure if 
> this is codified somewhere, but I believe we follow this procedure.)
> FWIW, it doesn't mean that the other person agrees with the veto, but 
> there must be one other person who says it is a valid technical reason 
> - that's it.  Even if I'm subject to a veto, I'll usually recognize 
> the other person's technical argument and won't bother challenging 
> it.  The veto is meant to force a compromise.
> Sometimes, if it is a matter of direction rather than a technical 
> reason (which is what your situation seems to have been based on my 
> limited knowledge), HTTP Server tends to subject it to a majority vote 
> rather than a veto (dueling vetoes are no fun).  For example, we have 
> choice A and choice B.  What do we do?  I recall a situation between 
> Ryan and Greg that was handled like this (OLD_WRITE, IIRC). That may 
> or may not have been before my time.  =)  -- justin

Under Jakarta laws this is not the case - Pete vetos - I raise an 
objection to the veto - Jakarta rules don't provide a solution.  Jakarta 
*proposed* voting rules address this (and more completely than the 
incubator documentation on voting).  End result -an unresolved 
situation.  Irrespective of the HTTP Server rules (which seems to be 
equivalent to the proposed Jakarta rules). the current scenario remains 
- Pete's girlfriends headache is a justification rationale. 

I want to make something really clear - my issue is this Jakarta rule. 
And from my experience in relation to "rules management", I'm watching 
closely the evolution of an incubator or community driven process that 
nails this down such that personal battles become irrelevant.

Cheers, Steve.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


Stephen J. McConnell

digital products for a global economy

View raw message