Paul Hammant wrote:
Nicola
[...]
There is no [VOTE] header. No vote has been called. And this "action item" has just bagen to be discussed.Actually it is my that that a -1 is just a vote. Given the 3/1 rule, it can be overridden. When it is the only ovte expressed it is a veto yes. For example if I was the only one that voted against you being PMC xhair (and 20 had voted yes) would I be vetoing it ? Clearly not._One note:_ please let's refrain from writing "-1" just for opinions. It's an error that I have myself taken and that can lead to confusion.
In my understanding, and in my personal experience, a -1 in this context is usually a veto.
I do understand that you meant to vote and not veto, but -1s are a delicate point, especially here at Avalon.
Let's try not to use formal voting till we come to an aggreement on action items.
A -1 is a _veto_, and as such should be used sparingly and only with the precise _veto_ meaning.
It has been suggested that -0.9 be used to express being strongly against, without issuing a formal veto.
As I said not a veto, just a vote.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
