2011/5/31 12:50 -0700, daniel.sm...@oracle.com: > 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?
Yes. The intent of Unanimous Consent is that all eligible voters approve, not just that all of those voting approve. I'll fix that. > I'm assuming a "voter" is an individual who explicitly > either approves or objects. A voter is an individual who has the right to approve or object. > - 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. You're right that all the methods need a deadline. I'll clarify that. > - 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. Hmm, good points here. If an objection is made during a Consensus vote without giving any reason at all then the objection just shouldn't count. It's ultimately up to the Governing Board to decide whether a question or objection is not answered in a timely fashion, or if a good-faith effort to resolve an objection is not made. The Board could, at its discretion, invalidate a single objection, invalidate the entire vote, or take some other unspecified action. I'll work out how to clarify this in the text. > - 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). Yes. > 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. A voter may change his vote at any time in any method. In all cases only the most recent vote will be counted. I'll clarify this. > - 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. ... No, that's not the intent. If the objection is addressed then it must explicitly be withdrawn in order for the vote to pass. I'll clarify this too. > (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.) Easily fixed -- I'll make "good faith" apply to both proposers and objectors. > - "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". See above re. 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. You're right, if "easy" and "hard" characterize the votes cast but not the cost of casting the votes. Human nature being what it is, the cost of casting a vote is never zero. Lazy Consensus is therefore "easier" in that it requires the eligible voters, as a group, to expend less effort in order to reach a decision. A Two-Thirds Majority does allow for more voters to object but at the same time it requires many more voters explicitly to approve, so in terms of overall effort it's "harder". > 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. Good suggestion. I'll see if that refactoring works out once I apply the above diffs. Thanks for your careful feedback! - Mark
