On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 17:04, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Hi Bernd, > >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:29, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) >> <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>> Hi Yonik, >>> >>> IMO, this vote has not passed. A bullet of this proposal proposes code >>> modifications and this is subject to VETO per Apache guidelines: >>> >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto >> >> Vetos only relate to some specific svn commit. >> You cannot veto proposals, releases, strategic decisions and anything else. >> >> (This is intended to be a generic comment, I'm not commenting on the >> vote(s) in this thread itself.) > > Actually code modifications are those performed or proposed.
Well, this project is about code, so nearly any discussion will result in code changes in some way. > At least that's > my interpretation, but I'm not an ASF lawyer :) A technical veto is a very powerful tool, so there's a strict set of conditions to be met. Clearly, for me, this is a strategic decision, but... > Let's ask the board though > -- they can help. ... hey, try it. It can't be bad. > Regardless, even if that point is moot, the sheer amount of emails, > discussion, amendments, etc., to these 3 sets of proposals and their > evolution is enough for me to also believe that this was too nebulous of a > vote to even know what you're voting on. +1. This is something I agree with. In my personal opinion, a vote should only ratify a consensus reached - or - cut a decision after a long running discussion where all arguments have been exchanged multiple times where no consensus could be reached. It would have been much better to first have a [DISCUSS] thread, followed up with a [PROPOSAL], ratified by a [VOTE] for such a fundamental change in the project's organisation. > So, I'd like to ask the board about > that, and plan to. There you go. BTW, I think we will notice that the PMC chair will mention this discussion in his upcoming report. Bernd
