On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com> wrote: >> +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 :) >> > > 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. >
I don't understand the 72 hour comment. Are you talking about period in which casting a veto is possible? 72 hours from what? 72 hours from a commit? From a review request? I'd guess that anytime up until a release is kicked out would be fine for a veto (technical reasons right, even if it is bad form)? (I've heard that from Greg Stein anecdotally, but can't find it documented anywhere.)
