incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: veto stuff
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:23:28 GMT
i'll consider this more fully later, but for now:

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
> 0) any vetoed commit must be reverted immediately till the issue is not
> resolved
> 
> 1) a veto can be formally challenged not before two weeks(?) after it is
> cast; this prevents from challenging as a norm.
> 
> 2) when a veto is challenged, someone must back who did the veto with
> his own explanation of why it stands technically (not necessarily why he
> agrees); if not (time?) then it's null.

no, because that makes it a requirement that there essentially be *two* -1 votes.

> 3) else, if it still stands, a majority vote can be taken to decide if
> it should stand.

no.  a veto may not be overridden.  that is fundamental.

as another possible alternative, perhaps vetos can be appealed to the pmc.
well, not appealed, but a petition made that they be reviewed.  as with
the u.s. supreme court, if the pmc chooses not to consider it the veto
stands.  ultimately, any final decision comes down to the pmc chair (who
will probably work assiduously to keep things from going that far) because
that person alone has the ultimate responsibility to the foundation for
the project. (under the current bylaws.)

this is a very murky area, but until some final decision is made, we need
to stick by the current rules -- which means vetos may not be overridden,
but they may be worked around through the provision of alternatives that
address their concerns.

commit access is a privilege, not a right.  if someone uses vetos capriciously --
or ignores them -- despite warnings, the suspension or revocation of commit
privileges should definitely be considered as an option.



Mime
View raw message