(i have a few little comments that i've been meaning to write up for a while now. probably better this way since it doesn't break up cliff's flow. )
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 12:23 -0700, Scott Boyd wrote: <snip> > [2:29] <sboyd> Cliff: Decision making: for something like a release, > you will have a vote. Votes usually have a +1, +0, 0, -0, -1 ranging > from enthusiastic yes to a veto. > [2:30] <sboyd> Coach: What is the process for exercising veto right? > Are there any guidelines around vetos? I could see the possibility > that a veto may hold progress in some cases. that is entirely the purpose of a veto :-) social conventions often prove surprisingly strong at binding a group. there are very few rules or process exercised around the issue of a vote - but that's the point. there can be no hiding - a veto is a strong public action with consequences. collaborative development requires cooperation. occasionally, developers fall out for various reasons. reputation has proved to be a stronger tool in keeping exchanges civil than rules and process. as much as possible at apache is a matter for public record. the public can judge every exchange. > [2:32] <sboyd> Cliff: vetos are very rare. Sometimes people will give > a -1 with a disclaimer on something that should be fixed. An example > may be on a vote to release, one person votes -1 because some set of > files don't have the correct license disclaimers, but they'll change > their vote once the issue is addressed +1 (i had to do this earlier this year) > [2:33] <sboyd> Coach: to summarize, a veto should always have a > helpful suggestion to resolve the percieved problem i think i disagree a little. i would say that if you have a resolution then commit it :-) veto's are a bit like SHOUTING STOP VERY LOUDLY! it's rare that circumstances demand this. shouting isn't very civilised so most of the time a quiet word achieves more with less effort. so, if i see an issue with a particular commit, most of the time i'll just commit a correction. if i don't feel confident (maybe i don't know the committer very well or i'm just on unfamiliar territory), i'll reply to the commit and raise my concerns. only when there is a pressing necessity would i consider a veto. i don't think that i've every needed to veto and personally rollback the commit (which is the ultimate sanction). and not all -1's are veto's. +1, +0. -0, -1 are also sometimes used in discursive mode (see above). quicker to type and easier to read than yeh and so on. when a VOTE is by simple majority, -1 is just a negative vote to be tallied against the +1's. i'll probably post something about consensus (lazy and otherwise) sooner or later. only when an action requires consensus (either socially or processwise) is a -1 a veto. - robert
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
