I'd prefer to keep a 72 hour window for lazy consensus. Adam
On May 7, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> 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. > > B. > > > On 7 May 2013 20:07, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would like to discuss about the lazy concensus here. >> >> Side notte: I already read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >> thanks. >> >> So these votes happend quite often this last 4 months either in >> @private or @dev ml, and I'm quietly becoming very annoyed by them. >> Especially when they expect a response in less than a week ( I would >> say month). >> >> Lazy consensus give this false idea that because no-one objected in >> time then it's OK to process. That could be true if the expected >> response was not in a short delay or asked before a we, or... Actually >> it can be asked before a we, or at any time, but we have to understand >> that sometime our time isn't the time of other: in some countries >> that can be the holidays, bank days or some of us can be busy for any >> reason, some of us also disconnect at certain times. Other have a lot >> of email to handle per day with mostly the same priority. >> >> So I think that something tagged [DISCUSS] should at least let 2 weeks >> or better 1 month to expect a response and make any assumption. At >> least if noone still answer then the person that answered could take >> its own responsibility and consider it as a yes . >> >> I reckon that some lazy concensus need an urgent response (though i >> doubt a lazy concensus is enough in that case) so I propose >> >> If nonone object I would like to push the delay of such discussion to >> 2 weeks by default . Also i really would like that such concensus >> should be optionnal not a common thing to use to pass ideas. This >> isn't natural at all. >> >> - benoit
