Just thought to check the foundation's glossary of terms[1], and found: 'Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at > least three binding +1 votes and no vetos.
This is what Hadoop is calling "lazy consensus", which is defined in the above document as: A decision-making policy which assumes general consent if no responses are > posted within a defined period. For context, I originally brought this issue up on the CloudStack lists. But I was told that CloudStack copied it's initial by-laws from Hadoop. And maybe other incubating projects are doing the same. So it seems important to fix. On 21 March 2013 17:11, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I was just reading through the by-laws[1] and it occurred to me that we > might have the wrong definition of lazy consensus. > > Specifically, we define it here: > > "3.2.1. Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no > binding -1 votes." > > My understanding of lazy consensus is that it requires no votes > whatsoever. In fact, there are two modes. The first is to simply do > whatever it is you think is a good idea, and assume someone will speak up > if they disagree. The other is to state your intention, and give 72 hours > for people to object. If you receive no objections, you proceed. > > Neither of these situations require any votes. And in fact, the primary > idea behind lazy consensus is that if you hear nothing, you can proceed. > > Here's a good page about it: > > http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html > > If you look on the foundation's page[2] on voting, you even see things > like this: > > "Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus, three +1 votes > are required for a code-modification proposal to pass." > > i.e. Needing three +1 votes is an alternative to lazy consensus. > > Thoughts on this? > > [1] http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html > > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus > > Thanks, > > -- > NS > -- NS
