On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:56 AM, sebb wrote: > 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.
At Apache, at least three +1 and no -1 is lazy consensus. At least three +1 and a majority of votes cast is lazy majority. I get to say that because I invented the term. lazy == "at least three affirmative" is the quorum requirement If we had some other quorum requirement, like >50% of the PMC has to vote before a result can be tallied, then we wouldn't call that lazy. Fortunately, almost everything we need to do can be done while being lazy, which is good because I tend to be a slacker. ....Roy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
