You've made some interesting and educational points on what veto rights are all about Greg, and I appreciate that quite a bit. I do think that it'd be worthwhile to document this on the foundation website because it's a common point of frustration for many projects, from well-established ones to incubator podlings.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:54 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_apache.org> wrote:
>> A veto not accompanied by a technical reason is invalid. I am seeking
>> consensus on the dev@ list that no technical reason was given. No one
>> is going to strip anyone's bits.
> It's a slippery slope that you want to avoid. Very very much.
> One of the things he said, "And API users want to see the most
> interesting/unique value for every error, and wrapping with generic
> codes is exactly working against that."
> That's quite technical. Or simply saying "the serf code should remain
> on top of the error stack" is technical.
> It doesn't have to make sense to you, and you don't have to
> acknowledge/understand his point. His veto still stands.
> Again: you don't get to declare a veto "invalid", and the dev@ list is
> not the place to seek consensus for that either. Take it to private@,
> as I suggested, or work through the discussion. And if you want to
> strip his veto, then you have to toss him from the PMC. As I said, PMC
> Members have unilateral power. A majority or a supermajority doesn't
> get to vote and say "bah. that veto is invalid." That throws out the
> entire point of the veto system. So yes: you *are* talking about
> stripping bits because that is your only path.
> Further: this isn't a Rules game. Bert disagrees. Why don't you simply
> work through the disagreement? I've seen PMCs played out as a Rules
> game. It is horrible and destructive.
Received on 2013-07-10 05:05:22 CEST