On 11 June 2013 23:05, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: > 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.
Phew! that's a relief. We agree on how to be lazy! So the upshot is that Labs is not using lazy consensus. > 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. But at least they don't disagree with each other. > ....Roy > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
