incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: veto stuff
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:59:13 GMT
At 2:53 PM +0100 11/7/02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>At 12:41 AM -0500 11/7/02, Ted Husted wrote:
>>
>>>I agree with Steve in that the assertions that a "veto cannot be
>>>overruled" and a "veto must be justified" are contradictory. The
>>>implication is that a unjustified veto is void, but who decides it
>>>is void? And in deciding a veto is void, is it not being
>>>overruled?
>>
>>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 "overruled"
>>because it just doesn't exist.
>
>It's not always bitwise stuff, especially in framework and highly cutting-edge projects.
>Everything has pros and cons, and anyone can find a con in everything...
>
>This concept works well with healthy communities, but breaks with ill ones.
>

Agreed. My experience has been lucky enough that I've only seen
this issue in healthy communities. In unhealthy ones, 'veto' is just
one of *many* problems.
-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

Mime
View raw message