I personally am fine with simply changing the name in the by-laws to "consensus approval". Looking at the by-laws there are three places that currently list "lazy consensus" as the voting mechanism. Adding/reinstating a PMC member, adding/reinstating a committer, and making a code change. The code change already has an addendum to make it so that there is only one +1 needed and that the waiting period can be non-existent, so it is really its own form of voting. For the PMC actions I think 3 +1s is an OK barrier to meet.
So to make this official I propose that we change the term "lazy consensus" to "consensus approval" (aka s/lazy\s+consensus/consensus approval/gi) in the bylaws so that it matches the terms used in the apache foundation glossary. As per the by-laws this would take a "lazy majority" of active PMC members. Lazy Majority - A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 votes than -1 votes. Voting lasts 7 days, so it closes Thursday March 28th. I am +1 (binding) --Bobby On 3/21/13 12:45 PM, "Noah Slater" <[email protected]> wrote: >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
