Oops. My vote is binding. +1 On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Casey Stella <[email protected]> wrote:
> +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]> > > > > > > > > > > > -- Nick Allen <[email protected]>
