Lemme get this straight: a person who makes a class-action veto against a whole swath of people should have those votes upheld to protect that person from the tyranny of the majority?
This is getting sillier by the moment... ----- Original Message ----- > From: William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Cc: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:34 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes > > On 1/30/2012 6:06 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people >> lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto >> authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this >> PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel >> votes are by straight majority consensus, iow no vetoes allowed. > > -1 > > The argument is very simple, you don't allow a simple majority to > tyrannize the minority. So the ASF has long held a simple standard > of consensus on all committee additions and subtractions. Some > majority might be irked at [insert name here]'s [actions|inaction| > comments|silence] but that was never grounds to remove a committee > member. If you want to propose some supermajority metric other than > "unanimous", that could work (e.g. 2/3 or 3/4 in agreement). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
