-1 technical vetoes

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Costin Manolache wrote:
> I think the most important thing in tomcat evolution the idea that if 3
> committers are voting +1 and need something, there is enough reason to
> not vote -1 ( especially if it can be implemented as an option).

My take is that -1 votes on technical issues (vetoes) should (a) only be
given when the voter has important technical issue(s) to raise; (b) be
expressed as conditional: "My vote is -1 until/unless the following issue(s)
are resolved"; and (c) those issues should generally arise, and be
addressed, long before the need for a formal vote.

Does anyone disagree?  If so, under what circumstances?

	--- Noel


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: -1 technical vetoes

[Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>]

> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org] 
> 
> It has been said that -1s are vetos, and majority votes where 
> it's clear that a voting is in progress on majority rules.

Seems reasonable. Short and simple.

I think that instead of adding even more bureaucracy to the
voting process with -VETO, -0.99, -0.9999... etc. we should
go with the usual +1/-1.

If someone vetoes anything, you can always ask if it is a 
veto, and if so, if there are any ways to make that
someone take back the veto.

Voting isn't rocket science, and I don't think we should
need complex rules for it. Especially this veto thing
has been given a real good "what is a valid veto", which
shouldn't really be an issue, given sensible people. I would
also assert that given non-sensible people, no voting
procedure will help.

As has been stated here, the important part isn't the
voting, it is the discussion leading up to the vote.
After that, voting is a formality.

/LS


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: -1 technical vetoes

[Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>]

Leif Mortenson wrote:
> What about setting it up so that a -1 is a vote by default.  If someone 
> really
> wants to pull the veto card then they can specifically write -VETO or 
> something
> like that.  This way people can safely vote their disapproval without it 
> being
> as strong as a veto.  The ability to veto any vote will still be 
> preserved this way.
> 
> -1 can be viewed as a simple vote without stepping on any toes.  If a user
> writes VETO on a vote, then they should be required to explain themselves
> thoroughly.

We had this discussion on the incubator list.

It has been said that -1s are vetos, and majority votes where it's clear 
that a voting is in progress on majority rules.

This is the reason why I restated here the suggestion that had been done 
there to use -0.99 and variants to suggest strong disagreement without 
getting to a veto, in the cases where is would apply, and never use -1 
just to express a non-binding opinion.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: -1 technical vetoes

[Berin Loritsch <bl...@citi-us.com>]

> From: Leif Mortenson [mailto:leif@tanukisoftware.com]
> 
> What about setting it up so that a -1 is a vote by default.  
> If someone 
> really
> wants to pull the veto card then they can specifically write -VETO or 
> something
> like that.  This way people can safely vote their disapproval 
> without it 
> being
> as strong as a veto.  The ability to veto any vote will still be 
> preserved this way.
> 
> -1 can be viewed as a simple vote without stepping on any 
> toes.  If a user
> writes VETO on a vote, then they should be required to 
> explain themselves
> thoroughly.


Unfortunately that doesn't work.  Not expressing your oppinion
in voting is giving the message "I don't care what you do in this
matter".  I don't want to change the expected semantic from that
to "I am against your proposal" which is what a -1 expresses.

Honestly, the -1 vote means that there needs to be some more
discussion.  It might be that the concept is sound, but the
implementation needs to be reworked.  It might be that the
concept and implementation are good, but we need test cases
to prove it.  ALL -1 votes should provide a topic for community
discussion, and in the end should be resolvable by the community.
If that means that the proposal gets dropped for the time
being (i.e. several -1 votes) then the person can either
choose to take a different approach with what they were
proposing or they can drop it themselves.

The -1 is a safety net.  Different people have different
backgrounds, and if one person has been burned by a bad design
or a security hole, they will be able to recognize the culprit
in new code being proposed.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: -1 technical vetoes

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Leif,

> What about setting it up so that a -1 is a vote by default.

Please understand that the ASF already has clear procedures for voting, and
it was NOT my point to change the process in any way!  My intent was simply
to suggest a mindset that a -1 vote on technical matters (where they are
binding vetoes) be used constructively to ensure that critical issues are
resolved, not used as a roadblock.  That is why I made the suggestion that a
voter include in the justification for the -1 the conditions necessary to be
resolved.  So that there is immediate constructive input to start the
resolution processs.

As Berin said, "the -1 vote means that there needs to be some more
discussion.  [ALL] -1 votes should provide a topic for community discussion,
and in the end should be resolvable by the community.  [The] -1 is a safety
net."

If people simply want to disagree without a binding veto, they can vote -0.

	--- Noel


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: -1 technical vetoes

[Leif Mortenson <le...@tanukisoftware.com>]

What about setting it up so that a -1 is a vote by default.  If someone 
really
wants to pull the veto card then they can specifically write -VETO or 
something
like that.  This way people can safely vote their disapproval without it 
being
as strong as a veto.  The ability to veto any vote will still be 
preserved this way.

-1 can be viewed as a simple vote without stepping on any toes.  If a user
writes VETO on a vote, then they should be required to explain themselves
thoroughly.

Cheers,
Leif

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

>Costin Manolache wrote:
>  
>
>>I think the most important thing in tomcat evolution the idea that if 3
>>committers are voting +1 and need something, there is enough reason to
>>not vote -1 ( especially if it can be implemented as an option).
>>    
>>
>
>My take is that -1 votes on technical issues (vetoes) should (a) only be
>given when the voter has important technical issue(s) to raise; (b) be
>expressed as conditional: "My vote is -1 until/unless the following issue(s)
>are resolved"; and (c) those issues should generally arise, and be
>addressed, long before the need for a formal vote.
>
>Does anyone disagree?  If so, under what circumstances?
>
>	--- Noel
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>  
>



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>