You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> on 2000/06/13 02:56:13 UTC
voting and vetoes (was: Re: [patch 1.3.13] defaulted servername)
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 07:40:57PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>...
> > RTFM. I'm -1 (not a veto though).
>...
> If anyone has comments, please post them to the list before
> tommorow evening. I wouldn't consider your -1 a veto, in any
> case Bill, because you really didn't explain -what- bothers
> you exactly :-)
Um... let's clarify here people...
-0 means "I don't like it. This is not a veto."
-1 means "veto"
We can introduce some middle ground, but a lot of this "-1 but not a veto"
is starting to get confusing. I rue the day when somebody vetoes, but
another person just sees it as a vote :-)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: voting and vetoes (was: Re: [patch 1.3.13] defaulted servername)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 08:13:24PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>...
> But my point is that a veto must be backed by a -reason-, and I've
> never believed that "I just don't like it" is a reason... but
> perhaps that's why I've been single again for these years :-)
Yup. But a -1 without a reason (for safety) should be read as "veto, but I
forgot to clarify why."
:-)
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: voting and vetoes (was: Re: [patch 1.3.13] defaulted servername)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Um... let's clarify here people...
>
> -0 means "I don't like it. This is not a veto."
> -1 means "veto"
Um, no. Go read the guidelines again. -0 means "I don't
like it, and I may or may not be able to explain why, but
I'm not going to stand in the way." -1 is a vote against,
and only a veto when consensus is needed -- which it isn't
here. Bill has used -1 correctly.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
RE: voting and vetoes (was: Re: [patch 1.3.13] defaulted servername)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 7:56 PM
>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 07:40:57PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >...
> > > RTFM. I'm -1 (not a veto though).
> >...
> > If anyone has comments, please post them to the list before
> > tommorow evening. I wouldn't consider your -1 a veto, in any
> > case Bill, because you really didn't explain -what- bothers
> > you exactly :-)
>
> Um... let's clarify here people...
>
> -0 means "I don't like it. This is not a veto."
> -1 means "veto"
>
> We can introduce some middle ground, but a lot of this "-1
> but not a veto"
> is starting to get confusing. I rue the day when somebody vetoes, but
> another person just sees it as a vote :-)
That's what I originally thought of a -1. Other comments have been
implying otherwise (what, a non-veto -1 and four +1's is the +3
required? sillyness :-)
But my point is that a veto must be backed by a -reason-, and I've
never believed that "I just don't like it" is a reason... but
perhaps that's why I've been single again for these years :-)