Cool! BTW, that should have read:
> PROPOSAL - This is a concrete proposal with lazy consensus in effect and a 72 hour time limit On 10 May 2013 22:27, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am not thrilled about the idea of increasing lazy consensus time. If > > you're engaged with the mailing list, then you can pitch in. If not, then > > things are going to happen in your absence. I think that three days is a > > fair trade-off between wanting to move quickly, and wanting to make sure > > that people with day-jobs can contribute in their spare time. > > > > Note that some projects have it in their by-laws that weekends and > holidays > > don't count. I think I would be +0 on that change, if somebody wanted to > > propose it. > > > > I would ask though: what problem are we actually trying to solve here? > I'm > > not aware of any instance when something passed on lazy consensus that > was > > later considered to be a mistake. And by extension, I know of zero > > instances where an increased waiting period would have changed anything. > > > > So why bother? :) > > > > However, I do think we have some confusion about how decision-making > > actually happens. Like, if I want to do X, is lazy consensus okay? Do I > > need a vote? If I need a vote, what sort of vote? Majority approval? > > Majority consensus? Single Transferable Vote? I think we ought to discuss > > these things, and document them in a set of by-laws. > > > > And yes, I use "NOTICE" to mean "this thing happened" or "this thing will > > happen". i.e. It's not something I'm opening up for discussion or lazy > > consensus. It's just a statement of intention, or fact. > > > > I think perhaps it would be a good idea to document the tags we're > expected > > to use. (Though, I think, it can only ever be a recommendation. People > will > > forget, etc.) > > > > I am happy to start using "PROPOSAL" to mean "this is a proposal and lazy > > consensus is in effect". > > > > Okay, so I just read this again: > > > > http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html > > > > Wow. What a great document. > > > > So, it makes it clear that you can actually just *assume* lazy consensus > in > > everything you do. (Very important!) So no need to explicitly start a > > thread to try and get it. If you're confident, you can just go ahead and > do > > the thing. Woop. > > Yep. That's what I was after with my definition clarification. In line > with what I was saying. > > > > > So, to summarise how I think we should document this in our by-laws: > > > > 1) Most of the time, you can assume you have consensus for whatever it is > > you want to do. So have at it! > > Yes. Yes. As above. Yes. > > > > > 2) Some of the time, you might be a little unsure. In those instances, > you > > should make a proposal to the dev@ list, and tag the subject with > > "PROPOSAL". Mention that lazy consensus is in effect, and after 72 hours > > you can proceed. > > +1 > > > > > 3) There are some specific things that always need a proposal to be made. > > That is, you cannot assume consensus. You must make the proposal, and > give > > 72 hours for people to object. Those things are: [...] > > +1 > > > > > And how about this for the tags we're using: > > > > DISCUSS - This is an open discussion with no time limit > > > > REQUEST - This is a request for some action to be taken (prepare release > > notes, testing, merge, etc) > > > > PROPOSAL - This is a concrete proposal with consensus in effect and a 72 > > hour time limit > > > > VOTE - This is a formal vote with a 72 hour time limit > > > > NOTICE - This is a notice of action taken, or action about to be taken > > (i.e. no discussion or consensus needed) > > > > ANNOUNCE - This is a project level announcement > > +1 > > I think PROPOSAL helps here. This way I can filter VOTE and PROPOSAL > and make sure I make time to address those threads when I have an > opinion, and to do it within 72 hours. I would be +1 on not counting > weekends. > > And this agrees with my assessment that DISCUSS is not really the > place to set a time limit. > > Benoit, does this address your concerns? I've said my interpretation > of your objections but I don't want to misrepresent you. When I read > "abuse" I read it as "A DISCUSS thread is really not the place to > expect a fast response and therefore taking action after 72 hours > feels like an abuse." > -- NS
