Swapping out "lazy consensus" for "consensus approval" seems to make sense. But might it also be a good idea to specify how lazy consensus (as defined in the ASF glossary, and as used throughout the foundation) can be used? I presume Hadoop makes heavy use of lazy consensus. (This is a drive-by posting on my behalf. I am otherwise not involved in your community.) Examples would be a C-T-R policy, changes to the wiki, or any time someone says "I plan to do X. If nobody objects in 72 hours, I will assume lazy consensus."
On 21 March 2013 21:44, Aaron T. Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Robert Evans <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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. > > > > All sounds good to me, though I recommend you start a new [VOTE] thread so > that folks realize that this thread has moved on from a discussion into an > actual vote. > > -- > Aaron T. Myers > Software Engineer, Cloudera > -- NS
