On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm not sure I fully agree. All the lazy consensus's of late have had > a 72 hour window on them which is the same duration we use for couchdb > releases. > > However, we can discuss what the minimum lazy consensus period can be > based on what the minimum time that community members feel they can > respond. > > I don't mean this as horribly as it will sound, but, to a degree, if > someone can't take the time, in 3 days, to reply with '-1' to a > thread, perhaps that's a problem too? The whole point of lazy > consensus is to move forward quickly. We don't always need to wait for > a large number of +1's to get work done. > > Finally, I'll agree that lazy consensus can be used inappropriately, I > just don't think I agree that it's happened yet.
+1 to all of that. Cheers, Dirkjan
