sebb wrote: > jan i wrote: > > sebb wrote: > >> Gabriela Gibson wrote: > >> > > >> > * 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.
At Apache Forrest, the person calling the Vote needs to specify exactly when it will end. And send gentle reminders along the way. In that way there cannot be any ambiguity. Open-ended votes could potentially lead to trouble. e.g. if ever there was a contentious vote then it could not just be tallied when there are enough votes to meet a certain desired result. At Forrest we try to allow a full week, unless it is something urgent. -David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
