On Sep 21, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
Certainly the rest of the community out there in addition to the
PMC determines a lot of that. In which point, I think the
majority would rule.
Then I guess we are in agreement :-)
woo hoo!
Just propose a polite way to move from the commit for a controversial
change ( i.e. when someone feels strongly it's going to the wrong
direction,
even
if technically code is ok ) to the majority and 3+1 process - and
we're
done.
As you know - some people are complaining that veto is abused ( and
that's
right ),
many Rs turn into flame wars and get personal - so the issue is how
to avoid
a technical code discussion for a non-technical or subjective issue.
First, it's important to recall that whether under CTR or RTC,
there is always Review. If people, after something has
been committed under CTR has issues with it, then
that is Reviewing it after all. We already discussed
technical voting, but what about "direction" or "vision"
review. Or, as you said in a previous Email:
... a polite way of saying:
"Hey, nothing wrong with the code itself, but I don't think there
is enough
support from
the community for the direction you're going - could you confirm
that a
majority and
at least 3 people think it fits our goals ?"
That's still part of the review process... Vetoes are
there to prevent code from being committed, but not
all reviews are for the functional aspects of the
actual code but rather to determine how much support
there is for an implementation or feature... So I would
say that this is still a valid and expected part
of the R in *both* CTR and RTC.
The thing is, of course, one cannot veto code based
on non-technical reasons, but one can certainly review
it based on such reasons and ask for some guidance that
it makes sense. IMO, most of those types of cases
should fall into the following types:
1. People who agree and will help support it,
implement it, etc... (+1)
2. People who don't care one way or another. (+0)
3. People who don't like it, but hey, if it helps
you out and there are other people behind it,
I won't stand in your way. (-0.9)
4. I don't like it and this is why. It would be
a mistake. (-1)
So when voting, one would count up the number of +1s and -1s
and see who wins. The proposal can be changed to address
deficiencies and another vote called if need be, after all
we want to achieve more universal consensus. Some places
say "As long as you have 3 people behind this, then go
for it", which implies most people are therefore in the
+0 or -0.9 and no one feels so strongly about it that
they vote a -1. But again, the -1 is not a veto per se,
since it's not technical merit being discussed or
voted on, but rather community support.
Again, the ASF voting rules kind of address this already...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
