incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] eliminate vetoes on personnel votes
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:52:28 GMT
On 01/30/2012 05:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I've never liked vetoes for this. One person can hold an entire PMC hostage
> simply for disliking someone (or worse: subtle corporate concerns masked
> otherwise). People have said in the past, "you should have veto so you're
> not forced to work with somebody you dislike." I respond, "grow up. we work
> with annoying people all the time, and the majority says they *can* work

When this question came up in another context, Roy's concern, as I
recall it, was something to the effect that if you don't allow vetoes of
proposed PMC members then you might create a dysfunctional PMC.  (Roy,
please correct me if I miss-recall.)  A PMC needs to regularly reach
consensus.  If person X has technical ideas that are incompatible with
person Y then perhaps they should not be on the same PMC.  At least
that's the way I recall Roy's argument...

Also note that if you get to the point where one person is vetoing a PMC
addition then the rest of the PMC could vote to remove that one person.
 A veto is effectively asking the PMC to choose between you and the new
person, a strident move.

A less confrontational approach is to have a discussion before any vote,
where folks can air their concerns.  If folks voice significant concerns
then it might not be wise to hold a vote.

Finally I'll observe that if supermajority would result in a different
result than consensus then the PMC probably has serious problems
collaborating that need to be fixed.


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

View raw message