On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Benoit, > > We already have a notion of Lazy 2/3 Majority in the bylaws as passed > for many different vote types. As the -1 veto process is proposed to be > dropped outside of justifiable technical blocks on commits, there would > then be no more veto _override_ process possible for electing a chair or > new PMC member, or modifying official documents. > > The intent is therefore to pull forward the scrutiny that the veto > override vote would have brought into the initial vote for these specific > vote types. That means using a lazy 2/3 majority vote rather than > permitting the continued use of blocking vetos - which is problematic > and not desired. As an example, your -1 vote on this change is a blocker > given the current bylaws, and that is not what the PMC intended when > drafting the bylaws. > I don;t see any discussion *on the PMC mailing-list* about it. Anyway thanks for the explanation, I understand now and while I disagree with the 2/3 lazy majority (i couldn't vote in the short limited time given) I agree that it should not reintroduce the veto removed in lazy majority. I'm -0.5 then. - benoit
