Hey... just thought I'd drop off a description of the "formal" mechanism that the ASF uses for voting since it has been seen here and there on this group :-)
+1 "I'm all for it. Do it!" +0 "Seems cool and acceptable, but I can also live without it" -0 "Not sure this is the best thing to do, but I'm not against it." -1 "Veto. And <HERE> is my reasoning."
Strictly speaking, there is no vetoing here, other than by Guido. For changes to Apache (as opposed to bug fixes), it depends on where the development is. Early stages, it is reasonably open and people work straight against CVS (except for really big design changes). Late stage, it requires three +1 votes during discussion of a patch before it goes in.
Here on python-dev, it would seem that the votes are a good way to quickly let Guido know people's feelings about topic X or Y.
On the patches mailing list, the voting could actually be quite a useful measure for the people with CVS commit access. If a patch gets -1, then its commit should wait until reason X has been resolved. Note that it can be resolved in two ways: the person lifts their veto (after some amount of persuasion or explanation), or the patch is updated to address the concerns (well, unless the veto is against the concept of the patch entirely :-). If a patch gets a few +1 votes, then it can probably go straight in. Note that the Apache guys sometimes say things like "+1 on concept" meaning they like the idea, but haven't reviewed the code.
Do we formalize on using these? Not really suggesting that. But if myself (and others) drop these things into mail notes, then we may as well have a description of just what the heck is going on :-)