On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:34:27AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: >... > When a veto is cast, it must be accompanied by technical justification > and should also include an alternative proposal. I just don't think > that people who aren't involved in a project at a code level can > make valid technical justifications. Maybe that is the beauty of > the system, since if non-contributors can't make valid technical > justifications, then we don't have to worry about spurrious vetos. :)
This is a *very* important point. There has been significant talk about improper veto usage in some projects. To prevent that kind of misuse, a veto *must* have technical justification. The veto must also come from somebody with voting rights on the change (or proposed code change) in question. Voting rights are based on merit. If you are a regular contributor (read: patch supplier or similar), then you get commit access to a component. At that point, you get a vote on changes to that component. Note the contrast with the "all j-c committers have voting rights on all j-c components." I do not believe that works, and will not vote-for/support such a model for the Apache Commons. I think the model will be multiple components within the Commons, with associated groups of committers and voters. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
