+1 (binding) Thanks for the reply, casting binding vote. >>> 3. Veteos >> Who can Veto? Timeframe when a veto is challenged? >> > > The "who" is anyone that can cast a binding vote on an issue. > Further, veto's are only applicable for "lazy consensus" style formal > votes or technical decisions. > > I'm not sure I get your timeframe question though…
The question was if someone challenges a vote by committing a binding veto -1, and if their veto is challenged (say the reasons were not obvious) and they are asked for reason(s) what should be the timeline for the person to reply/communicate. (say a case of someone trolling, the question was about handling trolls :) Regards. > >> Regards. >> >> >> On 03-Jan-2013, at 6:58 AM, Chip Childers >> <chip.child...@sungard.com<mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com>> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Wido den Hollander >> <w...@widodh.nl<mailto:w...@widodh.nl>> wrote: >> On 01/02/2013 09:52 PM, Chip Childers wrote: >> >> One quick follow up. >> >> If we approve the bylaw draft, I'll publish it to the website. >> However, the document comes from the perspective of CloudStack being a >> top level project (graduated from the incubator). I'd likely include >> a header note indicating this issue. My preference is to approach the >> process this way, so that we don't have to do an amendment process >> during / after a potential / eventual graduation. >> >> >> Not to be picky, but shouldn't this be changed then? >> >> >> "3.1.1. Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary >> project >> >> development mailing list >> (cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>)." >> >> >> If you are writing like we are graduated should we keep the incubator >> address there? Just to prevent this bylaws being copied and we being haunted >> by this e-mail address still being present in there. >> >> Other then that: +1 (binding) >> >> Wido >> >> -chip >> >> >> >> >> Agreed. I'll make that change in the wiki version. Unless anyone >> objects, I don't think this change represents a reason to restart the >> vote. >>
