On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 June 2013 00:24, Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: >>> I'm confused. I thought that only a 72 hour lazy consensus was needed to >>> start a new lab. >> >> You're kinda right, lazy consensus, but our bylaws define lazy >> consensus as "at least three +1 and no -1, 72 hours"[0]. There were >> only 2 binding +1's in this case... Given our nature, I was supposing >> we could just relax the 72 hour bit in this case. That clear up your >> confusion? Personally, I'd be supportive of moving to lazy approval >> at some point, but that doesn't change the current quandary > > That's a strange definition of "lazy" consensus;
Strange, but clear. I was simply clarifying the misunderstanding. The bylaws hint at how to get it changed - just takes someone with the motivation to do so... --tim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
