+1 binding On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 18:20 Matt Foley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]> > > > > >
