[Members] Council Veto Guidelines and Rules

[Dave Cridland]

On 17 December 2014 at 12:21, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com> wrote:
>
> I don’t think so.  It seem you object to me voicing my concerns to your
> veto.  As a member of the XSF, I think it’s my responsibility to speak up
> when I feel the action taken by a council member is inappropriate and not
> well justified.   And, to extent that other XSF members think I’m off-base
> here, I welcome them telling me so.  That’s all part of the checks and
> balances of any open standards organization.
>
>
You've quite clearly stated that you haven't read the protoXEP in question,
and you think this is a generally inappropriate use of veto. Moreover,
you've made claims as to when a Council member can use a veto in an
appropriate way - such as your requirement to have consensus, a resolution
available to the author, restrictions on the scope of a valid veto, and so
on. These are all framed in very general terms, entirely unspecific to the
case at hand.

In other words, you seem to be claiming I'm making a procedural error.

So no, I don't object to your voicing concerns to my veto, I do object to
being castigated for failing to follow a veto procedure that doesn't exist.

> 1) Council members should only veto with the consensus of Council.
>
> This is explicitly not the case; Council operates on a voting system
> defined in the Bylaws and XEP-0001, and it's not really a "veto" if it's a
> consensus Council decision.
>
>
> I don’t have a problem with well justified, appropriate vetos.   I have a
> problem with poorly justified, inappropriate vetos.
>
> Obviously, council members have to use their best judgement.   And XSF
> members have to exercise their best judgement in how to respond to actions
> taken by council members and by other XSF members.
>
> My language in my OP really missed the point I was trying to make.   In
> short, while a council member can (procedurally) veto a ProtoXEP for any
> reason… I think they should take care in how they exercise veto they cast,
> especially ones which give the authors no reasonable means to correct the
> council members objections.  There’s lots of things a council member
> probably should consider before casting an uncorrectable veto.
>
>
I am, I admit, annoyed by the implication that I did not take care in my
decision, and that it I did not consider the implications, that my reasons
were "shitty", and the other generally unconstructive and unspecific
language - but it's the specific accusations of a procedural error that I
find objectionable. Even these I have tried to address.

Dave.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20141217/6dcbde10/attachment.html>