On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:59 AM, 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. > Actually, I draw almost exactly opposite conclusions from my experience with Apache. A person who is difficult to work with for a minority of the community is a major impediment to growing the community in my experience, especially with people who are like the minority. To be more specific, a prolific contributor who is an ass to women will prevent the project from ever getting very many women as contributors, much less as committers. The potential negative side of having been vetoed for a role in the project is exactly the reason that personnel decisions are debated in private. It is much better to not let the person under consideration know about potential committership or PMC membership until the answer is positive. It isn't uncommon for lack of consensus on a nomination is eventually cured and the vote passes. Without privacy on the first vote, the second chance might well not ever happen. As a small semantic point, whether voting is the same as vetoing depends strictly on the voting rules in play. With consensus as the requirement, a negative vote is exactly the same as a veto.
