Consensus in a procedural issue (through voting) is unanimity. Everybody agrees.
In procedural issues the veto principle doesn't work as it stalls discussion, hardens viewpoints. Leading to people moving away from getting to a compromise. 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 Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 03/24/2015 06:43 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > >> > >> Shouldn't the sentence 'Any veto must be accompanied by reasoning and be > >> prepared to defend it. Other members can attempt to encourage them to > >> change.' then be removed > >> fromhttp://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html? > > > > > > That sentence, and that sentiment, is incredibly important. Thinking > that a > > veto is final, written in stone, and never to be revisited, is kind of > > damaging to conversation. > > The 'commit veto' process is, I think, a different matter altogether > from a discussion about a new person or about a new website. The idea > of the code veto is 'This code is so wrong that it has to leave the > repo _right now_.' One casts such a veto immediately upon observing > the commit, and then the required reasoning starts the community > process as to whether it stays out of the repo. > > If decisions about people are consensus decisions, subject to > blocking, then the 'veto' comes at the _end_, _after_ the discussion > in which people air their objections. So, I claim, this sentence isn't > entirely apropos to the subject of this thread. > > > > > > -- > > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen > > http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon >
