Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=mEBOKwJ/McFar2wr2SUxTehT9Xjzb/XI5Q8yc2G/+y60VlAvsq8MifZB2Uvf5qD00MSwrk7Ce5nDbsF+Ps+iLVW98/pVwx4zoaUhTQy4ZA7VMtDd7jzslsnwdabDbMbP8J63t95ClryNC7YIYwo6KqS8kIECpbvZdhAeXRKO4iU=;
References: <1327968403.68805.YahooMailNeo@web160903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <4F2820B4.5030505@rowe-clan.net>
Message-ID: <1328031521.16265.YahooMailNeo@web160902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:38:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
To: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>,
  "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F2820B4.5030505@rowe-clan.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

----- Original Message -----=0A=0A> From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-c=
lan.net>=0A> To: general@incubator.apache.org=0A> Cc: Joe Schaefer <joe_sch=
aefer@yahoo.com>=0A> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:11 PM=0A> Subject: =
Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes=0A> =0A> On 1/30/2012 6:0=
6 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:=0A>>  It is clear that with all the turmoil of la=
te and people=0A>>  lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having v=
eto=0A>>  authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this=0A>> =
 PMC.=A0 Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel=0A>>  votes=
 are by straight majority consensus, iow no vetoes allowed.=0A>> =0A>>  I i=
ntend to offer a policy vote on this issue over the coming=0A>>  days and t=
hat vote, as with all procedural votes, is NOT subject=0A>>  to veto.=0A> =
=0A> Just FTR; as a proposal to modify a policy/process which requires=0A> =
consensus today, your eventual [VOTE] does require consensus to be=0A> adop=
ted.=A0 You can't do an end run around the current policy with=0A> a simple=
 majority.=0A=0APlainly wrong:=A0 It has been repeatedly established (even =
by the Chair)=0Athat policy decisions here are not subject to veto.=A0 This=
 is one of those times.=0AFurthermore the documentation [1] clearly points =
out that procedural issues=0Aare to be decided by majority consensus, and n=
othing could be more procedural=0Athan a vote about how to count votes.=0A=
=0A[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org