Re: Voting rules

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

Peter Donald <do...@apache.org> wrote:

> At 04:57  29/11/00 +0100, you wrote:

["you" being Wolf Siberski]

> Well the problem occurs when someone will not argue their position
> and give reasons for their convictions.

OK, as much as I haven't seen any -1 being overruled here (during the
time I have followed Ant development that is) I haven't seen a
committer sticking to a -1 without giving reasons - or without
discussing it thereafter. And I really really hope this won't happen
here.

To be honest, I haven't seen too many -1s at all ...

>>So the interesting question is: what happens if the vetoer 
>>is not convinced by the requesters counter-arguments? 
>>Who should decide if the counter-arguments *really* have 
>>addressed all issues? 

> If the vetoer has all his problems solved by counters of requester
> and the vetoer does not come up with new reasons to -1 then he is -1
> without an explanation (which is invalid and uncounted).

This doesn't really answer the question who should decide whether all
problems have been solved. It's not always clear and of course the
vetoer and the requester are going to disagree - otherwise one of them
would change his/her vote.

>>Now let's take a look at the idea to put an obligation
>>to answer on the vetoer. It doesn't really help the 
>>requester to put such an obligation into the rules, 
>>because a good will vetoer will always listen to the 
>>requester's arguments while a bad will vetoer will 
>>always produce some answer to comply with the rule.
> 
> I haven't seen many of this type of behaviour at Apache. Almost
> everyone that I have encountered will at least consider other
> positions (in most cases).

I haven't seen that either. I hope people like the "bad will vetoer"
Wolf describes would show this attitude before they get elected as
committers.

> ;) You should see some of the discussions on other lists. Ant is
> relatively tame

Even though I don't really know which lists you are referring to, I
guess you are right. But I wouldn't say Ant is "relatively tame".

The Ant community - like any other - has its own style of
discussions. It seems you will always really know everybody is just
interested in improving Ant. I know there are some people whose
opinion is very important to me, even though - or maybe because - we
don't share the same point of view. I really enjoy being part of the
Ant community (and this is not "committers only" of course).

Stefan