Specifically to address your last comment, that the definition doesn't seem too bad... I agree that the concept as describe is a good one. But we have another name for that: consensus approval. The definition is bad because it calls this process "lazy consensus", but this already has an established meaning within the foundation.
On 21 March 2013 17:37, Matt Foley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > > -- NS
