Veto vs no was: Re: CFV: New Project: JDK 9
Magnus Ihse Bursie
magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com
Thu Oct 31 20:37:22 UTC 2013
On 2013-10-31 18:04, Andrew wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 31/10/2013 9:14 AM, Andrew wrote:
>>>>  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/#new-project-vote
>>> Reading , it doesn't seem to be possible to vote no?
>> Sure it is, but it is spelt "veto".
> They aren't the same thing, plus "Lazy Consensus — There are no vetoes.". 
>  http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus
Why don't you read the whole paragraph you're quoting from?
These methods are used for decisions that do not require the full
attention of the set of eligible voters.
In the consensus methods the possible votes are Yes, Veto, and Abstain.
A *Veto* must be accompanied by a justification; a Veto without a
justification is invalid. If a Veto is raised then the voter who raised
the veto and those who support the proposed action must work together to
reach a mutually-agreeable resolution. If a Veto is resolved then the
voter who raised the Veto must withdraw that vote by explicitly
abstaining or by casting a Yes vote.
These Bylaws use two methods of consensus voting:
*Lazy Consensus* — There are no vetoes.
*Three-Vote Consensus* — There are no vetoes, and at least three Yes
votes or else unanimity if there are fewer than three eligible voters.
I think it's pretty clear that when doing consensus voting, if you
disagree you do not vote "no", but "veto". That's kind of the point of
consensus -- you can't have one person voting "no" and the majority
voting "yes" and then that single person gets overruled. Then it's not
consensus, but a majority vote.
Also, I think it's pretty clear, at least in the context of the
three-vote consensus, that the "there are no vetoes" description on lazy
consensus is the definition of what's required to consider the proposal
ratified. The interpretation "lazy consensus is a consensus voting
method where veto is not allowed" seems quite far-fetched...
So the absence of "no" as a vote is not a bug, it's an explicit feature.
More information about the discuss