On 24 March 2015 at 15:53, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 03/24/2015 06:43 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > >> > >> Shouldn't the sentence 'Any veto must be accompanied by reasoning and be > >> prepared to defend it. Other members can attempt to encourage them to > >> change.' then be removed > >> fromhttp://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html? > > > > > > That sentence, and that sentiment, is incredibly important. Thinking > that a > > veto is final, written in stone, and never to be revisited, is kind of > > damaging to conversation. > > The 'commit veto' process is, I think, a different matter altogether > from a discussion about a new person or about a new website. The idea > of the code veto is 'This code is so wrong that it has to leave the > repo _right now_.' One casts such a veto immediately upon observing > the commit, and then the required reasoning starts the community > process as to whether it stays out of the repo. > > If decisions about people are consensus decisions, subject to > blocking, then the 'veto' comes at the _end_, _after_ the discussion > in which people air their objections. So, I claim, this sentence isn't > entirely apropos to the subject of this thread. > Consider the scenario a PMC discusses, and the vote is called (indirectly to stop critical voices) early, then a -1 is the only way to express your opinion. When we define rules, as important as this, we should not look so much at the "good weather" situations, but where things dont follow the book, like a vote called on purpose too early. rgds jan i. > > > > > > -- > > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen > > http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon >
