It seems resolution 7.G is a result of the rule of no -1 votes leading to irreconcilable difference. And the rule of no -1 votes seems to be the result of the rule to grant the power to veto. In stead of making it simpler it has added layers.
>From the reports of the various projects that I have read regarding new people coming on board (or lack thereof) the following stands out: several projects have stated in consecutive reports that there were no new people on board. This could well be the result of the rule (no -1 votes), due to the irreconcilable differences. Irreconcilable differences are like vetoes expressed. If in stead of the veto possibility the simple majority rule was at play, it might have been so that fewer project would have reported consecutively that no new people were onboarded. Not having the power to veto when it comes to people should, and I expect will lead to more people on board, more diversity, more innovation and less hampering of progress, less walks towards the board (as if there have ever been any) and less complexity in the rulesets. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is sometimes the case that the individual, with power in the community, > can't work with another 'in his eyes difficult' person. > > If his contributions are beneficial to the project, if others in the > project can work with that second person in the collegia/civil manner that > is expected in a communityl, how can it be acceptable that that first > person (the one with power who can't work with the other) can block > acceptance with a veto. > > Voting against is not the same as vetoing! > > Suppose one of you (with power) finds me 'difficult' within this community > (as this community is somewhat similar to any other ASF project). And > suppose I get nominated as PMC member, because of my good contributions and > of my ability to work with many others. > > How would a veto (to have me in) inspire me to do more for the greater > good, but in stead lead to cycles towards being a loss for this community? > > Vetoing people isn't a community builder. It doesn't help when it comes to > collaborating. It doesn't help when it comes to diversifying the community. > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> > wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > And I emphasize 'range'. There was a talk at Apache Con some years >> > back about the idea that civility goes in two directions: we all want >> > to express ourselves in collegial and civil ways, and we also have to >> > be prepared to accept communications from people with very different >> > styles, up to and including some that we might individually find >> > somewhat 'difficult.' >> >> It's sometimes the case that an individual has difficulty fitting into one >> community, yet fits just fine within another. It's interesting to >> consider >> how group dynamics differ. What positive conditions are present or >> negative >> conditions absent in the harmonious group that allow it to function >> smoothly? >> >> In any case, there are no ideal mechanisms for resolving intractable >> personnel >> conflicts. The best we can do is talk through differences in the hope >> that >> misunderstandings can be cleared or behavioral modifications adopted. >> >> Marvin Humphrey >> > >
