On Saturday, November 9, 2002, at 07:47 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> The Vetoer is obligated to state their intention to veto as early as
> possible, as a consideration to their fellow project members.

I don't know.  Each member of the community plays his 'negativity' 
cards as he pleases.  They are pretty obnoxious cards.  Inviting people 
to go negative early and often doesn't sound healthy.  Clearly there is 
something worth saying near here though.

Player A might be a very low intensity player of high expertise, he 
reads his dev@ mail only once every one or two weeks - in that case his 
veto might arive very late in the unfolding of some proposal but his 
high level of expertise would mean it was highly respected.  A good 
example of this is edits I've gone negative about only while proof 
reading the cvs@ mail.

Player B might prefer to remain civil and adopt a curious playful 
attitude so the conversation remains cheerful and constructive until it 
becomes obvious that something he feels extremely strongly about is 
beginning to look unavoidable; only then he might decide to escalate to 
a veto.

Player C might be just like player B except rather than veto he might 
choose to escalate only to a high level of debate; remaining optimistic 
that will be enough to slow the proposal down until the discussion has 
had a chance to mature more.

Player D might be like B and C but be extremely reluctant to ever use 
his negativity cards because he considers them too corrosive to the 
long-term health of the game.  He might never veto.

I think what your really saying is that it's way 
abrasive/inconvenient/whatever when players show up late in the game 
and then escalate rapidly with high negativity - something that 
communicates that.. I can agree with.

  - ben

ps. Is there anything written down yet about responsibilities regarding 
the proof reading of cvs@