On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > 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.) >
The question was about "how long after the merits of a veto is challenged should the community wait for a response from the person vetoing.". Basically, this is an edge case inside of an edge case really.
