On 24 March 2015 at 16:15, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > 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. > you are completely right, this is my real concern.
rgds jan i. > > 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 >
