Accoding to ASF bylaws a valid veto from a PMC member is binding. Also, there is no procedure for throwing someone off the PMC. So such a veto is binding for as long as the PMC member maintains their status.
Most companies appoint 3,5,7 person majority rule boards that are not involved with day-to-day to allow consensus for day-to-day operations, but provide a relief valve when consensus cannot be achieved over important decisions. The existence of a board induces compromise since an individual veto is unlikely to hold up when brought to the board. On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:45:48PM -0500, Corey Nolet wrote: > Jeremy, > > The PMC boards in ASF are required to look out for the long term health of > the entire project. This is why the conversation of consensus can be a > touchy one and a hard one to agree on. If a single PMC member vetos a code > change, can that single member stop the code from being changed or could > majority overrule the veto. It's going to be a complicated discussion. > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Jeremy, > > > > The PMC boards in ASF are re > > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kep...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: > > > >> To be effective, most boards need to be small (~5 people) and not > >> involved with day-to-day. > >> Ideally, if someone says "let's bring this to the board for a decision" > >> the > >> collective response should be "no, let's figure out a compromise". > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:26:09PM -0600, Mike Drob wrote: > >> > Jeremey, FWIW I believe that the PMC is supposed to be that board. In > >> our > >> > case, it happens to also be the same population as the committers, > >> because > >> > it was suggested that the overlap leads to a healthier community > >> overall. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Jeremy Kepner <kep...@ll.mit.edu> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > -1 (I vote to keep current consensus approach) > >> > > > >> > > An alternative method for resolution would be to setup an > >> > > elected (or appointed) advisory board of a small number of folks whose > >> > > job it is to look out for the long-term health and strategy of > >> Accumulo. > >> > > This board could then > >> > > be appealed to on the rare occassions when consensus over important > >> > > long-term issues > >> > > cannot be achieved. Just the presence of such a board often has the > >> effect > >> > > encouraging productive compromise amongst participants. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:33:40PM +0000, dlmar...@comcast.net wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > It was suggested in the ACCUMULO-3176 thread that code changes > >> should be > >> > > majority approval instead of consensus approval. I'd like to explore > >> this > >> > > idea as it might keep the voting email threads less verbose and leave > >> the > >> > > discussion and consensus building to the comments in JIRA. Thoughts? > >> > > > >> > > > >
