incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: veto stuff
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:59:13 GMT
At 2:53 PM +0100 11/7/02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>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
>>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.

Agreed. My experience has been lucky enough that I've only seen
this issue in healthy communities. In unhealthy ones, 'veto' is just
one of *many* problems.
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   [|]
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

View raw message