[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r1501371 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/util_error.c

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 21:10:08 -0400

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_apache.org> wrote:
>...
> So, I submit that your veto lacks a technical basis, and is therefore invalid,
> and has no standing.

You do not get to make that decision. Certainly not unilaterally. If
you feel it is invalid, then your course of action is to bring it to
the PMC's private list. Make your case, and then the PMC can take a
vote to eject Bert from the PMC, thus making his veto non-binding.
There is no middle-ground vote -- the veto power exists to avoid
mob/majority rule. Consensus wins, rather than majority.

Meta: when you starting debating on whether a veto is "valid" or not,
then you should stop yourself. Think hard. It is very, very rare to
see somebody willy-nilly play the veto card. *Especially* in the
Subversion community (boy, you wouldn't believe how often vetoes
happen in some other communities; we rarely see them at all, here).

Meta: a veto should always be viewed as the discussion starter. Yes,
it is unilateral, but the solution arrives through consensus: keep the
change, revert the change, do more work to resolve the issue.

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2013-07-10 03:10:40 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.