Veto vs no was: Re: CFV: New Project: JDK 9

Mario Torre neugens.limasoftware at
Thu Oct 31 08:52:18 UTC 2013

(Changed subject to not pollute the voting thread)

But "veto" is something different, is meant to block the election.

You need the majority of "no" to reject the voting, but only one "veto" is
enough (although our veto here need to be justified and discussed, etc...).

Anyway, this is mostly academical in this case, why anyone would ever want
to reject the JDK 9 project :)

Nevertheless, I propose to amend the bylaws for correctness (to be in
effect for next voting of course) adding "no" as an option.

 Il 31/ott/2013 03:12 "David Holmes" <david.holmes at> ha scritto:

> On 31/10/2013 9:14 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> I hereby propose the creation of the JDK 9 Project, with me as the Lead
>>> and the Governing Board as the sponsoring Group.
>>> The goal of this Project will be to produce an open-source reference
>>> implementation of the Java SE 9 Platform, which will be specified in a
>>> corresponding JSR, yet to be submitted, in the Java Community Process.
>>> The Project's repositories will initially be open for bug fixes and
>>> small enhancements only.  Features for the release will be proposed
>>> and tracked via the existing JEP Process [1].
>>> Anyone who holds the Author, Committer, or Reviewer role in the JDK 8
>>> Project [2] and has contributed at least one changeset to JDK 8 will
>>> be granted the same role in the JDK 9 Project.
>>> Votes are due by 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 13 November [3].
>>> Only current OpenJDK Members [4] are eligible to vote on this motion.
>>> Votes must be cast in the open on the discuss list.  Replying to this
>>> message is sufficient if your mail program honors the Reply-To header.
>>> For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see [5].
>>> - Mark
>>> [1]
>>> [2]**census#jdk8<>
>>> [3]
>>> OpenJDK+JDK+9+CFV&iso=**20131113T2359<>
>>> [4]**census#members<>
>>> [5]**projects/#new-project-vote<>
>> Reading [5], it doesn't seem to be possible to vote no?
> Sure it is, but it is spelt "veto".
> David

More information about the discuss mailing list