Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0ECEF189CF for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:42:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 57937 invoked by uid 500); 13 Oct 2015 14:42:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 57715 invoked by uid 500); 13 Oct 2015 14:42:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 57704 invoked by uid 99); 13 Oct 2015 14:42:17 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:42:17 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.37] (2804ds5-soeb.0.fullrate.dk [90.184.204.23]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 6F3821A031E for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:42:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings? To: general@incubator.apache.org References: <561D17F9.7090308@apache.org> From: Daniel Gruno Message-ID: <561D1847.2060501@apache.org> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:42:15 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <561D17F9.7090308@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/13/2015 04:40 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 10/13/2015 04:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote: >>> ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being >>> turned into a pariah in the process. =)... >> >> I don't see a problem with a -1 when voting to accept a podling. >> >> As those are majority votes that wouldn't be a veto, but if a suitable >> justification is provided people should pay attention to it. > > Minor nit: > If suitable justification is provided, people MUST pay attention to it. > We have a clear rule in the policy that if someone wants to put a vote > on hold, it must happen: > "If any Incubator PMC member says "hold" before the 72 hours [voting > period] are up, a formal discussion/vote will be conducted. " Scratch that, the docs are a bit vaguely written here and confused me. I think this refers to lazy consensus, which is something that rarely happens. Sorry. With regards, Daniel. > > On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that > graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto? > > With regards, > Daniel. > >> >> -Bertrand >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org