On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not talking about the consensus aspect in the principles of the ASF. > Everybody agrees that it is (one of) the first and foremost principle(s) of > the ASF. And I expect, like everybody else, that every contributor works > towards that in any of the projects (and podlings) in any kind of > situation. > > But it happens that sometimes consensus can't be reached and a vote must be > called. And then a veto doesn't help the project to move forward. > I think that you are looking at the voting process very differently than many others in this discussion. In Apache communities that I have been involved with, a vote is not something that is used to force the community into action. At least, it isn't something that I have seen used successfully. If a community is seriously wedged, then you have to deal with that problem. Simply cramming a majority view down the throats of a minority as a result of a vote will not have positive outcomes. > > Collegiality and community sense is a two way street. > > When a (greater) number of people within a project can collaborate with the > 'difficult' newcomer, why should it then be possible that the one (or the > few) with veto power - who don't/doesn't seem to be able to collaborate > with the 'difficult' newcomer - can block voting regarding onboarding as > committer or PMC member? > I should like to point out that those with superior technical or people skills are, by definition, a minority. Moreover, those without superior skills are typically unable to assess these skills (the so-called Dunning-Kruger effect which is not at all connected to me). These facts make me very inclined to try to listen to minority voices. I am often unsuccessful, but I have seen a very high correlation between not listening to these and failing in my own personal history.
