+1
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>wrote: > If you're all going to go spelunking in the Apache policy docs, > perhaps I can help a bit with context. > > The original HTTPD project developed a very specific set of policies > for controlling _commits to the code base_. The ballet of > -1/veto/justification comes out of there. The overall foundation > policy is an expectation that all projects will apply that same > approach to commits unless they can state a very good reason to do > something else. > > Contrarywise, releases cannot be vetoed. A -1 is just a -1. No veto. > Justification is polite, but not required. Proceeding in the face of a > -1 is not always a good idea, but the policy envisions it; it > envisions that someone might vote -1 because they _might prefer_ to > wait for some other change. But they can just be outvoted. > > Once you get past commits to the codebase and releases, you're more on > your own in deciding how to decide. The particular case at hand, these > bylaws, is an interesting one. > > People should be really clear about what they mean when they propose > consensus as a process. Yes, a consensus process is a process in which > every member of the community has a veto. However, it is also a > process in which every member of the community feels a grave weight of > responsibility in using that veto. Focussing on the veto in a > consensus process is not a good sign. > > Consensus is a slow, deliberative, process, chosen by communities > which value group cohesion over most everything else. It is also a > process that presumes that there is a _status quo_ which is always > acceptable. The community sticks to the status quo until everyone > involved is ready to accept some change. This approach to > decision-making is pretty hard to apply to a new group trying to chart > a new course. > > It is _not_ foundation policy to expect communities to choose > full-blown consensus as the predominant process. Typically, in my > experience, Apache projects do not do full consensus process. Instead, > they strive to give everyone a voice and seek consensus, but > eventually decide via a majority of some kind. Most of the time, the > first part of that (open discussion) achieves a consensus, so that the > second part of that becomes a formality. However, from time to time, > the community chooses to decide by majority in order to decide. The > touchstone of a healthy community is that the minority feel heard and > not steamrolled. >
