I am reading the aggregate effect of these changes as a veto only exists for a code commit. For all other votes, there is no such thing as a veto.
+1 On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:13 PM, James Sirota <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, cut and paste error. Of course the original text currently says the > following: > > -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this > vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation of why the > veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It may also be > appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of action. > > 16.12.2016, 10:54, "Nick Allen" <[email protected]>: > > I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing it? What > changed? > > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Based on the discuss thread I propose the following changes: > >> > >> Change 1 - Replace: > >> > >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, > this > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes > with > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of > >> action. > >> > >> With > >> > >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, > this > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes > with > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of > >> action. > >> > >> Change 2 - Replace: > >> > >> A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must > be > >> accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the veto. The > >> validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a > >> binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the > veto - > >> merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you > must > >> lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is > not > >> withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be reversed in a > >> timely manner. > >> > >> With: > >> > >> A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be overruled. If a > >> veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical explanation > >> giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity of a veto, if > >> challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding vote. This > does > >> not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely that the veto > is > >> valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the person > casting > >> the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, any action > >> that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely manner. > >> > >> Please vote +1, -1, 0 > >> > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours > >> > >> ------------------- > >> Thank you, > >> > >> James Sirota > >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) > >> jsirota AT apache DOT org > > > > -- > > Nick Allen <[email protected]> > > ------------------- > Thank you, > > James Sirota > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) > jsirota AT apache DOT org > -- Nick Allen <[email protected]>
