Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Now something about vetoing:
According to
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
"The rules require that a negative vote includes an alternative
proposal or a detailed explanation of the reasons for the negative vote.
The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative
proposal that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the
concerns leading to the negative vote can be addressed.
This process is called "consensus gathering" and we consider it a very
important indication of a healthy community."
To me it seem to put a lot of emphasis on reaching a consensus. Right
now we have a veto that most of the community don't agree with. That
is far away from consensus and is IMO _not_ an acceptable situation
from a community health POV. This means that we have to continue to
work until we find a solution that we can get a consensus around.
In this I absolutely agree. As Reinhard reminded me vetoing is
something that is very serious and should be used sparingly.
From this standpoint I think we should be even more specific than the
first sentence. I would reword it to read "The rules require that a
negative vote includes a detailed explanation of the reasons for the
negative vote and an alternative proposal or a statement defining what
would be required for the negative vote to be rescinded"
Ralph
