I hope someone moderates this through as I'm no longer subscribed to the list (Andrea cc'd me)
Reviewing those bullets the only one that might be confusing is " Willingness to implement alternative". Technically any supportes veto will stand however, in practice, I (me personally) expect people using a veto to still be active on a project. "An alternative" here means that the person using the veto acknowledges another community members desire to have a certain change and is willing to help the community find a solution that is an acceptable compromise. With this clarification I think all the points are already in the FAQ but if wording can be improved all committer have write access to the Apache.org site (if you want a review then members@ is the right place). Ross Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity On 17 Feb 2013 13:50, "Andrea Pescetti" <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > On 15/02/2013 Greg Stein wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 05:31:43PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> The point of a veto and a quick reversion is to return the code base >>> quick to a state where it does not contain controversial changes in >>> it. >>> >> That is NOT the point of a veto. A veto is "don't ship with that". The >> corollary actions are very, very different from what you suggest. >> > > Staying on the constructive part of this thread, here's Ross Gardler > speaking from the past (2011): > http://www.slideshare.net/**rgardler/the-apache-way-and-**openofficeorg<http://www.slideshare.net/rgardler/the-apache-way-and-openofficeorg> > --- > How Conflict is Resolved > * Everyone has a veto (-1) > * Only committers veto is binding > * Veto must be supported: > - Reasoned argument with course of action > - Willingness to implement alternative > * Veto's force discussion and, if supported, version control rollback > * Code can be vetoed, releases cannot > --- > If all this information is integrated into > http://www.apache.org/**foundation/glossary.html#Veto<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto> > it will be easier in future to approach similar situations. > > (For the rest, I'm rather happy to see that some bold forward-looking > statements in Ross' presentation are now true or mostly true... the project > has made many steps forward since 2011!) > > Regards, > Andrea. >
