On 11 June 2013 13:51, Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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...
Sorry, but it's still not clear to me. AFAICT Labs are using standard Consensus, but for some odd reason are calling it lazy consensus. That could just be a typo, but given that lazy appears several times that seems unlikely. I don't wish to change the process; however I would like to ensure that the standard terminology is used. Therefore I like to drop the word "lazy" from the web page(s), and point to the glossary entry for ConsensusApproval. Does that really require a bylaw change? > --tim > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
