There's an alternative viewpoint on this, which is that sometimes it is best to do nothing. And if a proposal can't scrape up 3 lousy +1's out of 58 committers (or 35 PMC members), it's probably best to let it die a natural death.
So the current definition doesn't seem bad to me. --Matt On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html > > > On 21 March 2013 17:15, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > NS >
