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: do no harm
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:10:58 GMT
Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> Do the bold words in the second paragraph of the proposed text for
> "Implications of Voting" at
> http://incubator.apache.org/drafts/voting.html#N1004F meet your
> criteria for "do no harm"?

it would be nice if you would cite the actual words as well as a
pointer to them, since they're not showing up as bold in my browser
for some reason.  here is that paragraph, with the bold words
upcased:

> The tacit implications of voting should be spelt out in
> the community's guidelines. However, IN NO CASE may someone's
> vote be considered invalid if the implied commitment doesn't
> appear to be met; a vote is a formal expression of opinion,
> _not_ of commitment.

> It appears that HTTPD has an unwritten rule that the person
> who puts forward a veto has an obligation to at least convince
> one other committer that the veto has some basis (even if that
> person does not necessary agree with the veto).

that has not been my experience.  on a number of occasions a single
person's veto has stood against the entire rest of the community.
it's not an obligation on the vetoer, but on the community: an
obligation to examine the justification objectively and rationally,
and know when to say 'well, it doesn't look like it to me, but i
*respect* [the vetoer]'s judgement and it knows more about this
than i do.'

it's about judgement, not opinion.

Mime
View raw message