Hi, Looking at the first propopal, I was surprised to discover https://www.kie.org/ - having a domain name like this is not in line with ASF trademark policy, nor is having a domain name like https://kogito.kie.org/. There are other trademark issues with those site(s), I trust the PPMC is aware of this and is taking steps to fix this before graduation?
I’m not part of your community, so it is possible I’m misreading this, but I see some issues from a casual glance. IMO, the two proposals need to be discussed further and consensus reached before moving forward. Calling for a vote without discussion, like the second proposal, is not how things are done in ASF projects. Kind Regards, Justin > On 12 Mar 2025, at 7:48 AM, Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > this is Paolo Bizzarri. I am part of the Apache Kie project. > > I am looking for clarifications about the official policy of Apache > foundation about code changes and vetoes. > > As per this document in the Apache web site, a -1 to a proposal for a code > change is a veto - i.e. it "kills the proposals" > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#:~:text=Votes%20On%20Code%20Modification,approve%20of%20this%20change.%27 > > However we got two proposals that are getting pushed through even in > presence of -1 > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/drojdtvz6xx1zo35ggjm75xdngnfcl21 > > and > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/c09l9xq0d8jz7th6k23gf5svoky06955 > > I got an answer from Alex Porcelly stating that "-1 are not vetos on > proposals" which seems wrong to me. These are code changes and so the rules > for vetoes should apply. > > Otherwise I could make a proposal like "put all passwords in plain text in > the code" and then pretend that the PR cannot be vetoed because the > corresponding proposal has already been approved, so there is consensus. > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/r37j54k3fyg5h18d4xdlb43ff9wcq96b > > Can you clarify and provide an answer that I can forward to the kie mailing > list? > > I understand that some projects have defined less restricting veto > policies, but I understand also that this is a matter of internal rules - > i.e. a way for the community of a project to decide how to work. My > understanding is that in the absence of such a decision, the Apache default > rules apply. > > Regards > > Paolo Bizzarri
