On 6/23/14, 4:31 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
3) As a point of principle, David's veto was completely valid as it stood.
>>While we are individuals it's perfectly reasonable for the PMC to set
>>requirements on what goes into a release we sign off on, even if the PMC
>>members may not always have ready access to the resources needed to meet
>>that standard.
>>
>>There's no reason David should have to volunteer resources to back up his
>>veto, especially when it was merely calling for a continuation of the
>>standard we already had set.
>>
>
>That's why I said "Unless you are willing to supply the funds to pay to
>use some resources, I don't feel like this is a valid -1." If he, or
>anyone, is willing provide general resources for testing, that's a
>different story. Given his response, I assume that is not the case.
>
>
But that's the opposite of what I just said. The opposition and the ability
to find funds are not strongly coupled.
Oh it is. I apologize, I misread your initial statement.
The lack of funds would hopefully be a convincing argument to try to sway
someone that we should lower the testing barrier, but they aren't a
legitimate excuse for invalidating their vote. What if Hypothetical David
wanted to do fund raising to get resources together? Would you decide on a
deadline that would allow his vote to be legitimate or not?
I wouldn't have a problem with anyone trying to raise funds for test
resources, within reason. But, unless someone is actually planning to do
this, it probably isn't much more than a hypothetical argument that we
need to spend time discussing.
The basis for a veto need merely be technical. "We've done this level of
testing before and it protects our users. We should continue doing it." is
a perfectly reasonable justification. (I admit I am taking some liberty in
making parts of David's previous concern more explicit)
BTW, situations like this are a part of why Majority Vote for governance
decisions are my preference. While I fully agree with David's ability to
veto I also agree that the community should be able to override him if no
funding source could be found.
