incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Husted <>
Subject Re: veto stuff
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:51:30 GMT
11/7/2002 8:25:36 AM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>The concept is that a veto must be rationlized. There must be
>a reason behind it and one that can be possibly put to a test
>(think scientific theory here). So a veto because "I don't like
>it" is not valid, and since it's not valid isn't being 
>because it just doesn't exist.

Right. But who decides whether it is rational?

On HTTPD, I hear that someone is suppose to "second" the veto to 
affirm that it is valid (even if they don't gree with it).

Another approach might be for the veto to be presumed valid by 
lazy consensus, but subject to a majority vote if someone 

Another variation would be to make the vote subject to a 3/4 
supermajority (75% of the votes would have to be against the veto 
to declare it invalid). 

I am not suggesting that the Incubator recommend one approach or 
the other, but that we simply recognize that a "veto validation" 
mechanism must exist, even if it has not been reduced to writing.


View raw message