Jim Jagielski wrote:
> At 12:41 AM -0500 11/7/02, Ted Husted wrote:
>
>>I agree with Steve in that the assertions that a "veto cannot be
>>overruled" and a "veto must be justified" are contradictory. The
>>implication is that a unjustified veto is void, but who decides it
>>is void? And in deciding a veto is void, is it not being
>>overruled?
>
> The concept is that a veto must be rationlized. There must be
> a reason behind it and one that can be possibly put to a test
> (think scientific theory here). So a veto because "I don't like
> it" is not valid, and since it's not valid isn't being "overruled"
> because it just doesn't exist.
It's not always bitwise stuff, especially in framework and highly
cutting-edge projects.
Everything has pros and cons, and anyone can find a con in everything...
This concept works well with healthy communities, but breaks with ill ones.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|