On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: >> 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. > > See my other response to Rohits question. Valid vetos are binding > until withdrawn. > > --David >
Yup - after re-reading the foundation page, you're right.
