On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > 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.)
Well, it boils down to the fact that making someone a PMC member gives them veto power over the changes you make. The only way that works socially is if everyone currently on the PMC agrees that person is a peer. Having said that, I should note that the context of Incubator is significantly different than a normal PMC. If incubator wants to structure itself more like a board and less like a project, I really don't have much to say against that. Note that it should effect all of the decision guidelines that give veto power, not just personnel decisions. ....Roy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
