On 17 December 2013 23:16, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 December 2013 22:04, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 17 December 2013 22:55, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 17 December 2013 14:17, Gabriela Gibson <gabriela.gib...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Hi everyone, > >> > > >> > as you probably are aware, I had an idea fail to win an Apache Lab > spot > >> > recently. > >> > >> Did it fail? > >> I did not notice a failed vote. > >> > >> > Being the incurable optimistic realist that I am, I counted no -1's, > one > >> +1 > >> > vote, one committer who joined my project immediately, and the fact > that > >> > the idea wrote itself in about 16 hours flat. > >> > > >> > So on balance, I think as ideas go, this is a pretty good one, and > whilst > >> > Apache Lab technically failed for me, it is still a big fat profit in > my > >> > book :-) > >> > > >> > It was also recently suggested that Apache Labs could do with some > ideas. > >> > So, having some experience of the Apache Lab process, here is my > >> personal > >> > frank take and lemonade recipe, in no particular order and without > >> > guarantee of validity. > >> > > >> > Enjoy the lemonade! :) > >> > > >> > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >> > > >> > * People who are eligible to vote and the process > >> > > >> > Problem: Most of the Apache PMC's are busy, successful people and may > not > >> > have much spare time and there are only 72 hours for them to find out, > >> > think about and approve an idea, and then X-mas weekend shopping + > real > >> > life happens. > >> > >> That is a misunderstanding. > >> The 72 hours is a MINIMUM period. > >> > > > > for normal votes yes, but lazy consensus is normally considered 72 hours > > unless otherwise specified. And the labs bylaws mix the 2 forms, so > nobody > > really knows what to rely on. > > > > Lazy consensus cannot work with a MINIMUM period, it depends on a fixed > > period. > > Sort of. > > I think the period can be taken to end when the person tallies the vote. > This may be at any point after the minimum period has elapsed. > > But in this case, the OP wrote: > > "there are only 72 hours for them to find out, think about and approve an > idea" > > Approval is not needed for lazy consensus - only lack of disapproval - > so the sentence does not make sense for lazy consensus. >
my point exactly. no approval is needed for lazy consensus, that was the 72 hours, but following the bylaws you also need 3 +1. I think it is within reason to assume, that combining those 2 rules (as the bylaw does), means a proposal needs 3 +1 within the lazy consensus time. But I also feel that doing so does not make sense, hence my proposal to make the bylaws clear and understandable. It is btw a problem if the applicant thinks lazy consensus is 72 hours pr default, and others believe the have more time to cast a vote. rgds jan I. --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org > >
