On 03/24/2015 11:01 AM, jan i wrote:
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.
In that case, veto the *vote*, not the person.
That is, if you feel that a community has called a vote early
specifically to quell dissent, then you, as a community member, should
declare the vote invalid.
"This vote is premature, and I declare it invalid. Let's discuss this
some more until there's consensus."
The real problem here is creating situations where a veto can happen at
all. As Greg has said a bunch of times, in this thread and in others,
votes are not the place to generate consensus. To quote:
"Stop with the "Votes" ... Damn I hate that. Generate consensus. A vote
does not generate consensus. It forces a result, and those voting fall
into winners/losers rather than general consensus."
--
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
