On 15/02/2013 Greg Stein wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:31:43PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
The point of a veto and a quick reversion is to return the code base
quick to a state where it does not contain controversial changes in
it.
That is NOT the point of a veto. A veto is "don't ship with that". The
corollary actions are very, very different from what you suggest.
Staying on the constructive part of this thread, here's Ross Gardler
speaking from the past (2011):
http://www.slideshare.net/rgardler/the-apache-way-and-openofficeorg
---
How Conflict is Resolved
* Everyone has a veto (-1)
* Only committers veto is binding
* Veto must be supported:
- Reasoned argument with course of action
- Willingness to implement alternative
* Veto's force discussion and, if supported, version control rollback
* Code can be vetoed, releases cannot
---
If all this information is integrated into
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto
it will be easier in future to approach similar situations.
(For the rest, I'm rather happy to see that some bold forward-looking
statements in Ross' presentation are now true or mostly true... the
project has made many steps forward since 2011!)
Regards,
Andrea.
