If the majority perceives that a nominee is an obstructionist then it will be reflected in the voting result. But if the minority - or even only one voter - perceives that and others don't, then a veto would be a show stopper for innovation, expansion and merit recognition c.q. privilege awarding.
I wonder how it can be that democracy is perceived worse than any other cracy when it comes to people in open source projects in general and ASF projects in particular. Mature projects shouldn't need to have such a mechanism when it comes to people. And it doesn't seem to fit in he Apache Way. Best regards Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Consensus Approval works great until you have someone who others rightly > or wrongly perceive as an obstructionist. Then it just makes the whole > project the loser. > > At least one project uses majority approval for new members, but a serious > attempt is made to make sure that the vote is unanimous anyway. Those in > opposition deserve to be listened to, but if there are only one or two > against and lots more in favor, then majority approval avoids long threads > trying to persuade the one or two. Sure discussing more to achieve > Consensus can be better, but you can also lose momentum of the committer > candidate and momentum of the rest of the community. > > The -1 vote is an alluring drug. It can be misused by individuals who, > consciously or not, cannot avoid the temptation to have control rather > than to collaborate. But really make sure you listen. History is full of > disasters caused by not listening to that one person. > > -Alex > >
