You've made some interesting and educational points on what veto rights are all about Greg, and I appreciate that quite a bit. I do think that it'd be worthwhile to document this on the foundation website because it's a common point of frustration for many projects, from well-established ones to incubator podlings.
YMMV Sent from my iPhone On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:54 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@apache.org> wrote: >> ... >> A veto not accompanied by a technical reason is invalid. I am seeking >> consensus on the dev@ list that no technical reason was given. No one >> is going to strip anyone's bits. > > It's a slippery slope that you want to avoid. Very very much. > > One of the things he said, "And API users want to see the most > interesting/unique value for every error, and wrapping with generic > codes is exactly working against that." > > That's quite technical. Or simply saying "the serf code should remain > on top of the error stack" is technical. > > It doesn't have to make sense to you, and you don't have to > acknowledge/understand his point. His veto still stands. > > Again: you don't get to declare a veto "invalid", and the dev@ list is > not the place to seek consensus for that either. Take it to private@, > as I suggested, or work through the discussion. And if you want to > strip his veto, then you have to toss him from the PMC. As I said, PMC > Members have unilateral power. A majority or a supermajority doesn't > get to vote and say "bah. that veto is invalid." That throws out the > entire point of the veto system. So yes: you *are* talking about > stripping bits because that is your only path. > > Further: this isn't a Rules game. Bert disagrees. Why don't you simply > work through the disagreement? I've seen PMCs played out as a Rules > game. It is horrible and destructive. > > Cheers, > -g
