Consensus Approval works great until you have someone who others rightly or wrongly perceive as an obstructionist. Then it just makes the whole project the loser.
At least one project uses majority approval for new members, but a serious attempt is made to make sure that the vote is unanimous anyway. Those in opposition deserve to be listened to, but if there are only one or two against and lots more in favor, then majority approval avoids long threads trying to persuade the one or two. Sure discussing more to achieve Consensus can be better, but you can also lose momentum of the committer candidate and momentum of the rest of the community. The -1 vote is an alluring drug. It can be misused by individuals who, consciously or not, cannot avoid the temptation to have control rather than to collaborate. But really make sure you listen. History is full of disasters caused by not listening to that one person. -Alex On 3/20/15, 6:04 PM, "Pierre Smits" <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi all, > >If I understand the various documents/pages available regarding voting >correctly, voting a new member in can't be vetoed. Likewise is it with >respect to voting for board members. If I have missed a page somewhere, >please point me to it and I stand corrected. > >The following document https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html >states: > >A positive result is achieved by Consensus Approval i.e. at least 3 +1 >votes and no vetoes. > >Any veto must be accompanied by reasoning and be prepared to defend it. >Other members can attempt to encourage them to change. > >While this document talks about getting new committers in a project, it >also seem to be applicable when it comes to getting new PMC members and >even who chairs the PMC. > >So how can it be that when it comes to projects, vetoes can be expressed >and block innovation or growth? >One of the reasons I heard when discussing this was that it establishes >control or manageability of the projects member list. > >Wouldn't a simple majority (more +1 than -1 votes) yield the same result? >If someone would feel that non-acceptance of a new person would benefit >the >project, wouldn’t it be more proper/righteous that he should put in the >effort and get a majority of votes? > >It is understandable why the ASF (and its projects) have the veto >principle >regarding code changes as it ensures that the(released) works of the >project are of a higher quality than the previous work, and that the works >don't change to something else than what is stated in the mission of the >project (meaning that e.g. the primary work of the Apache HTTP project - >httpd can't be converted into e.g. foo widget). >When it comes to people (and organisations), vetoes have proven that it is >a means to force consensus into a certain direction. It might have some >valid grounds when only a few have the biggest gun and they want to keep >others from getting the same gun (and thus rights/power), but in a >environment (as the ASF is) that builds on collaboration it is seems >overkill. > >What do you think? Is, when it comes to people, the veto mechanism not out >of place for an ASF project? > >Best regards, > >Pierre Smits > >*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* >Services & Solutions for Cloud- >Based Manufacturing, Professional >Services and Retail & Trade >http://www.orrtiz.com
