Yeah I wasn't saying that there was lazy consensus. I said, if you have 2 +1 VOTES, and you need a 3rd, then you don't have to call the VOTE closed at that point just b/c 72 hours passed. That you can just say that the VOTE is open *for at least* 72 hours, and then just leave it open if you don't have 3 +1s yet.
My "lazy" word below was to refer to myself or others in Gora who are either busy/lazy/whatever and that haven't got time to review the release candidate yet which is why Lewis doesn't have 3 +1 VOTEs. However Henry and I both said that we'd try to make time to do it in the next few days. In general, my principle is just to leave a release VOTE or a people VOTE open indefinitely if I was the one that called it, until I get my desired outcome (which in this case for release, no one is arguing, is 3 +1 VOTEs) :) Hope that explains my perspective. Cheers, Chris On Apr 23, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > Huh? A release is not lazy consensus. You need three +1 votes. > > On Apr 23, 2012 11:52 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" > <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Hey Lewis, > > FYI my reply to you in context on the Gora list: > > http://s.apache.org/49d > > In general, I just let the VOTE stay open for *at least* 72 hours. That way > folks that are busy/lazy/whatever have a chance to still chime in. The truth > is, > as the one that called the VOTE, you are the one pushing for a particular > desired > outcome, so just wait till you get it :) Then when you are satisfied with the > outcome, > so long as *at least* 72 hours have passed, you are welcome to call the VOTE > closed, and then move forward. > > Great job pushing this forward. > > My 2c. > > Cheers, > Chris > > On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote: > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > We recently held a VOTE [0] over on user@ and d...@gora.apache.org and only > > two official VOTE's were actually passed. For the record both were weighted > > in favour of a +1. > > > > Based on the nature of the VOTE and its conformance to the 'minimum quorum > > of three +1 votes' rule I am pretty much stumped about where to go next? As > > a whole the Gora community relies on lazy consensus, however in this case I > > am not satisfied that we can apply this attitude to the release package > > VOTE'ing process. I would therefore really appreciate some advice on how to > > progress with this. > > > > Thanks for any direction and/or comments. > > > > Best > > > > Lewis > > > > [0] > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/gora-user/201204.mbox/%3CCAGaRif0LwzaoH2CvVvecG8zMXYVkOWZhOTi3qegFgGfTKMEUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
