> On Mar 31, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It was more as a "if im always the only one seeing tomee differently i can > leave to let you space". Not as a threat.
That's a generous sentiment. Either way the best outcome is that you stay and we all learn the lesson that disagreeing is ok and healthy. How is the most important part. Disagreement can be an incredibly productive and innovative thing if done right. By definition, that means this project is sitting on some incredible innovative potential. A concrete way I think we can measure ourselves is by the number of people who feel comfortable voting. I would consider a vote of 20 people that included 3 -1 votes to be significantly more healthy than a vote of 3 people and all +1s. > [...] > There is no veto at apache if you check rules closely. All is more about > respect and overall consensus IIRC. I want to be careful that we don't learn a false lesson as Apache does have technical vetos. These are more meant for line-of-code level input vs community direction. The intention of the two votes was to make the line a little more clear. - The first vote "Merge Pull Request 123 - MicroProfile JWT support" was intended to flush out line-of-code level technical issues with the PR: breaks the build; doesn't follow code style; introduces security issues. It's ultimately a Review-than-Commit vote and a -1 should be viewed as a technical veto. - The second vote "Explore creating a reusable JWT Library" was intended to determine overall desire on what the next step should be. No commit being reviewed, more of a community level discussion. A -1 should not be viewed as a veto. -David
