Vote passes with 3 binding +1's (kyle, nick casey) and 1 non-binding +1 (matt)
Will make the modifications 18.12.2016, 11:47, "Kyle Richardson" <[email protected]>: > +1 (binding) > > -Kyle > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Nick Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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]> ------------------- Thank you, James Sirota PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) jsirota AT apache DOT org
