It says: "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
But it is up to the project to find consensus with the methods they select. For example Kafka has presets for voting and what type of voting is required for each change type. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=34019842#Bylaws-Actions So now the question is what does this community think justifies a veto? --- "At least we should have tried to discuss the objections and move to some form of consensus." Yes! The method where we go directly to a vote is not optimal for a healthy community, but I was under the impression we still formed a consensus. Consensus does not mean we all agree. It means we agree on how we disagree. Toni On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 3:15 PM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tony, > > thank you for your reply. > > The Apache policy however DOES NOT says this. > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > At least we should have tried to discuss the objections and move to some > form of consensus. > > I can't see how htis has happened. > > Probably I am missing something fundamental. > > Regards > > P. > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 1:47 PM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > For everything that has been proposed there has not been a clear security > > risk or performance issue, so following the original Apache guideline -1 > is > > a vote against it, not a veto. Every +1 has a justification on the same > > level as the -1 have. Both sides have had pros and cons, but neither > > solution breaks anything for the project. We might be swapping one > problem > > to another, but that is I guess how the world works. > > > > Toni > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:39 PM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > thank you for the answer. > > > > > > this is surprising to me, since these are clearly code modifications > and > > > they should fall under the rules for code modifications. > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > > > I will speak with the mentors. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > P. > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 11:15 AM Alex Porcelli <porce...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Paolo, > > > > > > > > Both proposals passed, as for proposals -1 see not veto. > > > > > > > > The first proposal is already under development. > > > > > > > > Please reach out to mentors to clarify about Apache policies. > > > > > > > > - > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 4:33 AM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am talking about > > > > > > > > > > - Including Docs, Examples, and Website(s) in Apache KIE 10.1 and > > > beyond > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > - Removing `build-chain`, the custom Jenkins framework, and > > structuring > > > > the > > > > > codebase in a duo-repo setup for 10.2 onwards > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that both these two proposals have been > rejected, > > > > since > > > > > they had got both binding -1 and these are the Apache rules. > > > > > > > > > > But there was no explicit mention that they got rejected and people > > > got a > > > > > bit uncertain. > > > > > > > > > > Can we confirm? > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > P. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
