ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Vetoes are void? was Re: [VOTE] target-less build files - counting results
Date Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:33:22 GMT
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Peter Donald wrote:

> So far I have have vetoed the change and given reasons which other people have 
> supported. You have failed to convince me to lift the veto. Thus under 
> current apache rules the change needs to be reverted. At least thats my 
> understanding of

This was a [VOTE] - not a commit or code change, but a plan on how 
the next release should behave. 

I strongly believe that it's the majority of commiters who should
decide what and how is released - not a single individual to control
it ( by blocking everything ).

> However you and Costin have decided that no vetos count anymore - only 
> majority votes. Because any veto enacts a "revolution" and then that 
> revolution is accepted by majority - thats the reasoning I believe?

Fact is that the majority of commiters:
- can release anything it wants. ( release rules )
- can use any codebase it wants. ( revolution rules ).

That's pretty clear. 

Vetoes with reason and a proposed soultion are perfectly valid
for code changes - but the current rules are pretty clear IMHO that
the majority of votes can override this via revolutions.

If someone makes a commit - it can be vetoed. 

If a new features is decided by the majority - you can veto any
implementation ( as long as you provide a better one or enough
reasons on why is bad )

> If so I think this needs to be decided by a far larger community as I don't 
> believe your interpretation is common to the rest of jakarta. If this is your 
> interpretation then I will take it to the general/pmc lists and discuss it 
> there and see if the jakarta rules can be changed. 

I don't think any rule have to be changed - but made clearer.

I think the veto is greatly abused - you veto changes in the main branch
while your revolution does similar things. 

> However what I do want for is this be consistent. If one veto is ruled to be 
> invlaid then all vetoes become invalid become invalid. 

I think a veto on a plan doesn't even exist - it's not a veto, but
a negative vote in a majority voting.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message