On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 12:33, Paul Hammant wrote: > > No Veto > > ------- > > We will refrain from the use of vetoes on medium to long-term issues on > > all code in all avalon cvses. > > > > +1 from me > > Can we define what a veto is?
disclaimer: I am not a rules lawyer :D in both cases it depends on whether the particular issue is subject to majority vote or consensus vote and whether the vote is lazy. A veto is only valid if an explanation is provided, in a majority vote a -1 is not a veto so you need not explain. > Question #1 : If ten people vote +1 for something and one votes -1, is it vetoed? if majority vote rules: no if lazy majority vote rules: no if consensus vote rules: yes if lazy consensus vote rules: yes > Question #2 : If one person votes +1 for something and one votes -1, is it vetoed? if majority vote rules: no if lazy majority vote rules: no (however, the result of the vote is undefined until there are 3 positive votes) if consensus vote rules: yes if lazy consensus vote rules: yes the distinction between all this of course only matters when someone votes -1. Especially if the -1 is not on something proposed under '[VOTE]' but something subject to lazy consensus. -------- My line of thought is that we temporarily make everything subject to consensus voting (lazy or not), hence every -1 is a veto. If we then agree that we need consensus, what we need to do is make sure there is always consensus. ie probably put a lot of time and effort into discussion in the event where something goes from lazy consensus to nonlazy consensus. It's (IMO) not so much about rules and actual definitions as it is about agreeing on the general principles. More eloquent people than me can worry about translating principle into rule ;) cheers, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
