If person A ‘can’t work’ with person B, in the nomination discussion, if person A is a reasonable person and sees overwhelming support for person B, person A should simply vote +0 and try to avoid person B. It isn’t like you all work in the same physical office. Once a group of people gets large enough, there is always a chance of temporary or long-term interpersonal conflict between some of the people. Folks should make reasonable attempts to show tolerance and get along, but the key for me is the word “reasonable”.
And this assumes you folks have truly listened to person A. Is person A someone who has a better sense of interpersonal dynamics or someone who has a tendency to hold a grudge? Why doesn’t person A like person B and can those who want to vote +1 provide more recent testimony that person B isn’t going to cause difficulties with every one else that occurred with person A? By now person B should have been reasonably active on your lists. Any indication of animosity from person B towards person A? It could just be that person A is the person you’re going to wish never got voted in. Or person A is going to turn out to be right and you’ll all be sorry you used majority approval to let person B in. How will you know? Make sure you and the other voters have thought it through. -Alex On 3/21/15, 11:59 AM, "Pierre Smits" <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: >It is sometimes the case that the individual, with power in the community, >can't work with another 'in his eyes difficult' person. > >If his contributions are beneficial to the project, if others in the >project can work with that second person in the collegia/civil manner that >is expected in a communityl, how can it be acceptable that that first >person (the one with power who can't work with the other) can block >acceptance with a veto. > >Voting against is not the same as vetoing! > >Suppose one of you (with power) finds me 'difficult' within this community >(as this community is somewhat similar to any other ASF project). And >suppose I get nominated as PMC member, because of my good contributions >and >of my ability to work with many others. > >How would a veto (to have me in) inspire me to do more for the greater >good, but in stead lead to cycles towards being a loss for this community? > >Vetoing people isn't a community builder. It doesn't help when it comes to >collaborating. It doesn't help when it comes to diversifying the >community. > >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 > >On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> >wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Benson Margulies >><bimargul...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > And I emphasize 'range'. There was a talk at Apache Con some years >> > back about the idea that civility goes in two directions: we all want >> > to express ourselves in collegial and civil ways, and we also have to >> > be prepared to accept communications from people with very different >> > styles, up to and including some that we might individually find >> > somewhat 'difficult.' >> >> It's sometimes the case that an individual has difficulty fitting into >>one >> community, yet fits just fine within another. It's interesting to >>consider >> how group dynamics differ. What positive conditions are present or >> negative >> conditions absent in the harmonious group that allow it to function >> smoothly? >> >> In any case, there are no ideal mechanisms for resolving intractable >> personnel >> conflicts. The best we can do is talk through differences in the hope >>that >> misunderstandings can be cleared or behavioral modifications adopted. >> >> Marvin Humphrey >>
