Hi, On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:35 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > I think some of this is confusion between what consensus means and > consensus voting mean (or more correctly consensus approval) [2] (i.e. 3+1s > and no -1’s.)
That's not correct, its not "no -1s" - quoting [2]: > Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at > least three > binding +1 votes and no vetos. It says "no vetos", not "no -1s" And as per [0] vetoes only apply to code changes, so that definition of "consensus approval" cannot IMO apply to anything other than code changes. I am very attached to the "vetoes apply only to code changes" rule, not willing to let that change in any way. That's just my opinion but I think changing that would be a big mistake as it allows for deadlocks. Even though I'm also very attached to paying attention to all -1s, *from a community point of view*, while recognizing that from a formal point of view they are not vetoes if it's not about code changes. -Bertrand [0] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
