On 01/30/2012 05:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > 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
When this question came up in another context, Roy's concern, as I recall it, was something to the effect that if you don't allow vetoes of proposed PMC members then you might create a dysfunctional PMC. (Roy, please correct me if I miss-recall.) A PMC needs to regularly reach consensus. If person X has technical ideas that are incompatible with person Y then perhaps they should not be on the same PMC. At least that's the way I recall Roy's argument... Also note that if you get to the point where one person is vetoing a PMC addition then the rest of the PMC could vote to remove that one person. A veto is effectively asking the PMC to choose between you and the new person, a strident move. A less confrontational approach is to have a discussion before any vote, where folks can air their concerns. If folks voice significant concerns then it might not be wise to hold a vote. Finally I'll observe that if supermajority would result in a different result than consensus then the PMC probably has serious problems collaborating that need to be fixed. Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
