I find the "lazy consensus" definition unclear. It seems more or less identical to "unanimous consent". Specifically:
- "No voters object" and "All of those voting approve" express the same thing, right? I'm assuming a "voter" is an individual who explicitly either approves or objects. - Lazy consensus specifically mentions a deadline, but this does not seem to be a distinguishing feature: all the voting methods, except the "absolute" variants, apparently rely on a deadline. For example, to declare that a "unanimous consent" vote has been completed, I must either i) wait until someone objects, ii) wait until every eligible voter has voted, or iii) cut off the vote after some deadline. - The lazy consensus proposer is obligated to "respond in a timely fashion to all questions and objections raised." I assume the "must" here means that, if the proposer does not do so, the consequence is simply that the vote does not pass. It seems this would be a good practice for the proposer in any type of vote, although it's not an explicit requirement; perhaps it should be? - A lazy consensus objector is obligated to provide "a reason for the objection" and make "a good-faith effort ... to resolve it." Again, the word "must" is used; I assume the consequence of not doing so is that the vote does not count. Again, it seems this would be a good practice for the objector in any type of vote, but it is not explicit. - Reading between the lines, the suggestion seems to be that it is possible for a lazy consensus vote to pass if someone objects, works with the proposer to address the objection, and then approves (or withdraws the objection). I imagine, however, that in any vote, a voter may change his vote after having objections addressed. Or would it instead be necessary to start over with a new proposal/vote? If the ability to change a vote is unique to lazy/three-vote consensus, this is not clear. - Speculating, It also looks like maybe the intent is that it is also possible for a lazy consensus vote to pass if someone objects and works with the proposer to address the objection but does _not_ afterwards approve/withdraw. The proposer might claim, "well, I tried my best," and then move on anyway. But what the definition says is that "no voters object." (I also note that the "good-faith effort" clause does not seem to apply to the proposer, so it would be easy for the proposer to abuse this by "respond[ing] in a timely fashion" but not making any real effort.) - "Three-vote consensus," "simple majority," and "two-thirds majority" require at least three approvals; "lazy consensus" and "unanimous consent" do not. I'm not sure this is the intent for "unanimous consent". - Big picture: based on the structure, it looks like lazy consensus is supposed to be "easy," but it turns out to be quite "hard." It is easier to remove a group member (a tolerance of 1/3 of voters objecting) than to add one (zero tolerance for voters objecting). I'm not sure this is the intent. What I'd suggest, once the meaning is clear, is to lift anything that applies generally (like deadlines) out of the "lazy" section to a general discussion of voting, and for anything left, be clear about how it is distinct from other forms of votes -- maybe adding a "Unlike lazy consensus..." sentence to descriptions of the other forms, as appropriate. —Dan
