On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 23:53, Alan D. Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: > On Jan 30, 2012, at 4:06 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. >> >> I intend to offer a policy vote on this issue over the coming >> days and that vote, as with all procedural votes, is NOT subject >> to veto. > > Seems like a good idea. > > I did't realize that -1 votes were vetoes on such matters. I think that a -1 > should carry the weight of a veto in the eyes of fellow peers such that a > consensus would be sought. If both sides agree to disagree then the tally > proceeds.
This is how we operate in the Apache Subversion project. It is usually couched as "let's wait a bit [with explanation]" rather than the negative-connotation of a "-1". But the point is that if there is somebody a bit worried, then the discussion turns to "okay. what is the concern? cool. let's watch for that to be remedied, and discuss again." The short answer is that in the Subversion project, we go for *consensus* rather than strict voting rules. IMO, this also models the Board's approach. If there is a discussion or a concern, then the Board typically tables a vote. Looking at history, there are *very* few cases where the Board has not voted unanimously. We defer the vote and continue discussion, then come back at the next meeting for a vote. For those non-unanimous votes, the results have been mixed; so... lately (heh. years), my view has always been "table" rather than push through a contentious vote. Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
