On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:55 PM, sebb wrote: > On 11 June 2013 19:55, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: >> 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 > > However the Glossary has a different definition of Lazy Consensus / > Lazy Approval: > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus > > Also both Incubator and Commons use Lazy Consensus (in the Glossary > sense) for some specific votes.
Sorry, that was a complete brain fart on my part ... The original guidelines didn't have any notion of lazy approval because we didn't do that in httpd until much later, so what I was thinking of was minimal quorum, not lazy approval. Bah. The current definition in httpd is An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and no vetos. An action item requiring majority approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes ( i.e. , a majority with a minimum quorum of three positive votes). All other action items are considered to have lazy approval until someone votes -1, after which point they are decided by either consensus or a majority vote, depending upon the type of action item. which I personally find a lot easier to understand than the glossary. ....Roy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
