On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 11:37 PM, Henry Robinson wrote: > > On 1 December 2015 at 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org > > > > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> ... > >>> Binding -1s (4): > >>> Greg Stein > >>> Ralph Goers > >>> Roman Shaposhnik > >>> Konstantin Boudnik ... > >> > >> Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been > >> addressed. > >> > >> I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread. > >> > > > > Do they have to be addressed for the vote to pass? My understanding was > > that this vote was by majority, and that -1s did not act as vetos. > > > > Given as we have no actual incubator policy that states whether > consensus is required or not - or at least none that I could find - one > would assume this falls back to the default "3x+1 and more +1s than -1s" > here, with consensus being something we strive for, but not a mandatory > outcome. > > What Bertrand might be trying to ask here is whether the concerns have > been addressed in the sense that there have been replies and a > discussion surrounding these topics. > > You don't necessarily need to have everyone agree with you, but you > should at least have a discussion about your different opinions. > > With regards, > Daniel. > > > The place for those discussions is either in the DISCUSS thread that precedes a VOTE or in the dev@ list of the newly incubating podling. As far as I can tell from the proposals and DISCUSS, RTC was the process already present in the community proposed. If the -1 folks would like to convince the community to change its approach then they should take that up with the community, not attempt to force a practice on them by holding up a passing vote.
