On 12 June 2013 20:40, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:14 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Following on from the thread entitled >> >> "Is Labs using Consensus or Lazy Consensus?" >> >> I propose to remove the word "lazy" from the bylaws where it appears >> as a qualifier to the descriptions of the voting process. >> >> This is not a change in the process, merely a clarification - or >> rather, removal of a source of confusion. > > Umm, I believe that the original intention was that new labs would > be subject to lazy approval. You would probably have to look back > in the archives to figure out the intent, if it matters whether this > is a change to the process.
I see. > I'd go further and suggest that there is no need for any kind of > approval to open or shutter a specific lab, and that the primary > purpose of the labs PMC is to simply prevent misuse of its > sandbox/lists as a distribution area, but that is something the PMC > can decide for itself. In that case, I think it makes more sense to decide what voting process we want (if any) before attempting to clarify the documentation, and I'm therefore awarding this lazy vote a -1 > ....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
