+1 I've never liked vetoes for this. One person can hold an entire PMC hostage simply for disliking someone (or worse: subtle corporate concerns masked otherwise). People have said in the past, "you should have veto so you're not forced to work with somebody you dislike." I respond, "grow up. we work with annoying people all the time, and the majority says they *can* work with this person." On Jan 30, 2012 7:07 PM, "Joe Schaefer" <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is clear that with all the turmoil of late and people > lightly tossing around -1's that the notion of having veto > authority over personnel matters makes little sense on this > PMC. Therefore I propose we adopt the policy that personnel > votes are by straight majority consensus, iow no vetoes allowed. > > I intend to offer a policy vote on this issue over the coming > days and that vote, as with all procedural votes, is NOT subject > to veto. > > Any other rational opinions? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
