Um, should have stated “non-binding”, on both recents.
On 12/16/16, 3:17 PM, "Matt Foley" <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
On 12/16/16, 10:30 AM, "Nick Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
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]>
