Re: veto?

[Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.pro>]

On 12/11/14 17:47, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/12/2014 07:08 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> On 12/11/14 11:43, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:04:05AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>>> It is very sad to see that contributors sometimes feel that the only
>>>> option for them is to resign.
>>>>
>>>> Would it be worthwhile giving people another option, for example,
>>>> allowing a percentage of DDs to formally veto decisions?  Would this be
>>>> better than people leaving outright?
>>> Can you elaborate which decisions and how many DDs could veto them?
>>>
>>
>> I didn't want to be too specific, to give other people a chance to make
>> suggestions
>>
>> However, one possibility is that anybody maintaining an essential
>> package and anybody who is a DPL delegate would be able to veto.  The
>> implication is that somebody can still win a GR against the veto, but
>> they do so knowing that they will have to find somebody else to maintain
>> some essential packages.
> 
> I don't agree with filtering the people on what kind of package they
> maintain, or if they have a role delegated by the DPL. This makes
> absolutely no sense to me: in what way are they more competent, and why
> should they have more power than others?

It is not a suggestion that such people are more or less competent than
anybody else.

Rather, it is a recognition of the fact that if these people are going
to leave anyway (or are not going to lift a finger to support a
particular decision, as everybody is a volunteer after all) then people
proposing the decision need to actively demonstrate that they can take
on the extra workload that will result from getting a decision in their
favor.