Paolo, Voted proposals form a "contract" between the members of a community, and there's no veto for such cases. The veto for code modifications is there to prevent unsafe/broken/non-conforming code from going in, the way I see it, not to prevent contracts from being formed between the majority of the members of a project.
Everything we do ends up being code somehow, so there wouldn't be a need to discriminate so clearly that vetoes only apply for code modifications. E.g., If you see someone going against a voted proposal in the form of a PR, a veto applies, because merging it would be breaking the "contract". Regards, Tiago Bento On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 9:07 AM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Yeah, that is also true :) > Anyway I see these types of situations as swapping one problem to another, > but is the new problem better? Time will show. > > Toni > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 2:59 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Toni, > > We will see if nothing is really broken once the task is completed ;) > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org
