On 10/13/2015 04:40 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 10/13/2015 04:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.ba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> ...I want to be sure I can still -1 it without being >>> turned into a pariah in the process. =)... >> >> I don't see a problem with a -1 when voting to accept a podling. >> >> As those are majority votes that wouldn't be a veto, but if a suitable >> justification is provided people should pay attention to it. > > Minor nit: > If suitable justification is provided, people MUST pay attention to it. > We have a clear rule in the policy that if someone wants to put a vote > on hold, it must happen: > "If any Incubator PMC member says "hold" before the 72 hours [voting > period] are up, a formal discussion/vote will be conducted. "
Scratch that, the docs are a bit vaguely written here and confused me. I think this refers to lazy consensus, which is something that rarely happens. Sorry. With regards, Daniel. > > On a related note; Am I correct in interpreting the rules such that > graduation requires consensus, and thus -1 would be a veto? > > With regards, > Daniel. > >> >> -Bertrand >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
