There was a post about this AIP on 1 Febuary (but no replies other than me), and AIPs are not code changes so the point about veto doesn't apply here I don't think?.
But yes, I think the rough idea of there should be apparent consensus before a vote is called makes sense. I was using "Lazy consensus" in calling my vote as no one else spoke up on the discussion thread ;) -ash > On 21 Feb 2019, at 20:22, Tao Feng <fengta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Please correct me if I am wrong. I think normally it starts with a > [DISCUSS] email thread for all the technical details discussion. If > everyone aligns, we could move to the vote thread. Here are some guidelines > found on the apache website(https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html) > . A few points captured: > > ``` > A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote > by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled > nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their > casters. > ``` > I think we should make sure everyone is aligned in the discuss thread > before we move to vote thread. WDYT. > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:26 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I'm about to send a vote email for the first AIP that I (hope) is going to >> be a simple and straight forward one to accept. >> >> Since we haven't defined the process of how/when we vote on AIPs I'm >> making it up as we go along :) >> >> Some points: >> >> - A failed vote on an AIP is not the same as rejecting the AIP, it could >> just need more refinement. >> - a proposal requires three positive votes and no negative ones in order >> to pass >> - I've picked a some-what random time of 1 week for AIP votes (compared to >> the 3 days for release votes) >> - members of the community are encouraged to cast votes. >> >> If no one objects to these "rules" I'll write them up in the wiki along >> with a template email to use for AIP votes. >> >> -ash
