On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Prasanna Santhanam <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:37:03AM +0530, Alex Huang wrote: >> > > 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 :) >> > > >> > >> > Well, I think that the first issue would be that we shouldn't have >> > trolls with binding votes... ;-) >> > >> > I guess it's a fair question though... any thoughts on how to think >> > about that issue? I'd say that by default, we're talking about the >> > normal "at least 72 hours" standard applying. >> > >> >> 72 hrs sounds fair. >> > Shouldn't -1 votes come with a reason? I think we don't explicitly > write that in the bylaws or did I miss it? > > -- > Prasanna., >
It's in there: 3.1.2.4. -1 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this vote counts as a veto if binding. All vetoes must contain an explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It may also be appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of action.
