On 11/6/13 6:01 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> Is there a reason why you are proposing Lazy forms of voting for most >> actions? >Because that's generally the Apache default for voting in committers, PMC >members etc etc. Although it does vary somewhat with projects with >guidelines/bylaws. Being able to veto the voting in of a committer or PMC >member seems reasonably important (to me anyway). Otherwise it could be >little more than a popularity or voting bloc contest - not that that has >happened yet. As always a valid veto needs a good reason. > >> I kind of like seeing how many folks vote +1 and who they are. >> Doesn't Lazy essentially only solicit vetos? >Hasn't stopped people voting +1 or +0 on previous consensus votes we've >taken. I thought most votes to approve committers were consensus, not lazy consensus. That seems to be the default for the HTTP project and what we've done in the past. Or are we not on the same page as to what "Lazy Consensus" means? -Alex
