On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > >> Rob Weir wrote: >>> When a committ is vetoed, it should be reverted quickly. >> >> Yes, when we have a proper veto, with valid technical grounds. A good side >> of the 0 ^ 0 discussion is that contributors are now better educated on this. > > Here is a better and more nuanced view of what a veto means: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management >
Indeed that is nuanced view of what a veto means, since that page does not even contain the word "veto" ;-) -Rob > >> >>> If the original coder is willing and able to revert quickly, then >>> great. But anyone, including the veto'er can do this. >> >> Of course anyone can. But it's appropriate to try and have the committer, >> and nobody else, undo his work, unless there are exceptional reasons >> (trademark concerns, build breakers that forbid others from getting this >> done...). >> >>> It is very likely that the person whose changes were vetoed will not >>> like the veto or the revert. That is quite natural. >> >> A committer is expected to be mature enough to understand rules: if a veto >> is issued, a committer will comply with policy and revert his patch, with no >> need that you step in and do it for him. >> >> It has already been discussed on this list: it may only be a matter of >> politeness, but someone sees it as unrespectful to have a commit reverted by >> someone else. Give him the opportunity to fix things himself, if not else as >> a way to acknowledge that the veto had the required technical grounds. >> Enforce the revert only if needed. >> >> The results on the code are identical, but the results on the community are >> different. And we all care about (and benefit from) having a healthy >> community, where everybody feels respected. >> >>> Then, if needed, continue the discussion, including alternative >>> approaches and solutions to satisfying the concerns of outstanding >>> vetos. >> >> I agree that there should be no delay from the moment a veto is acknowledged >> to the moment the commit is reverted, and that discussions can be held after >> the revert. But, whenever possible, give the committer the opportunity to >> revert the commit himself. > > As long as "no delay" allows for the person being some reasonable number of > hours away from the their technology including that daily activity that some > call sleep. > > Regards, > Dave > >> >> Regards, >> Andrea. >
