On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: >> 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 until withdrawn.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. > > It's also stated that way in the bylaws you just put up for vote: Section 3.3 >
Actually, that section doesn't deal with the question that Rohit raised really. He's asking about the result of challenging a veto, which is only addressed in the following: "The validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely that the veto is valid." What isn't addressed is the question of how long a "veto challenge" needs to remain "unconfirmed" (i.e.: nobody confirms it's validity) before it's considered to be a "valid challenge" nullifying the veto, or (alternatively) if there is an explicit action that would cause the "veto challenge" to be confirmed. Like I said, edge case within the edge case. Personally, I'm not sure that I care to try to plug this very small procedural hole... but it does exist. Perhaps the problem is in the concept of a "challenge" in it's entirety? Anyone else have an opinion? -chip
