> -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 05:13 > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: Vetoes for New Committers?? > [ ... ] > > Most PMCs do not draft their own rules, and just use "at least 3 +1 > with no vetoes". CouchDB's majority-rule for committers is unusual. I > hope that CouchDB's bylaws are not adopted as a template for others, > as I believe that the rule on committer voting is counter to an > important institutional tradition in Apache governance. > [ ... ] [orcmid]
I think there are common misunderstandings about where vetoes are allowed (as opposed to No votes that need to be addressed as part of consensus-seeking and community cultivation). My understanding is that votes on *procedural*matters* have no vetoes by default, but the effort to achieve consensus is always important in the presence of Nays. Treating nays as vetoes is often inappropriate because it admits a form of bull-dozing in the negative. Note that lazy consensus is a form of unanimous consent, with no explicit requirement for 3 +1s; here an objection is not a veto since lazy consensus is specifically an if-no-objection proposal and objections are invited. The only firm veto seems to be on commits. And, of course, the 3 +1s majority is *specifically* for eligible votes on release candidates (and which cannot be vetoed). The veto business (and the 3 +1s) seem to leak all over PMC practice without ever being made an explicit policy as some sort of urban legend. The fact that a podling mentor can veto actions (and also claim the myths as policy) is probably confusing in that regard (if that is still the IPMC practice). - Dennis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
