That's reassuring, but how does that relate to defaulting to vetoes for personnel?
Your statement about Board intervening could be said for Joe's/Ted's claim about "letting the minority be heard" as well... and doesn't support or undermine the use of vetoes for personnel. Cheers On Apr 5, 2017 07:49, "Marvin Humphrey" <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Niclas Hedhman <hedh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments > > presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type > > leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a > > project. > > If a personnel vote is contended, and it doesn't show up in a Board > report, the PMC Chair is not upholding their responsibilities and > should be sacked. But even if it does get omitted, at least one > Director is probably scanning each project's private list once per > quarter and will likely flag the issue. > > Contended personnel votes are not common. The Board has enough > bandwidth to review them and curtail egregious abuse. > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > >
