On 15 June 2011 20:39, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On reading that back I realise it's a horrible explanation, so I just >> changed it to: >> >> "Sometimes a member of the community will believe a specific action is the >> correct one for the project but are not sure that there will be consensus. >> In these circumstances they may not wish to proceed with the work without >> giving the community an opportunity to feedback. In these circumstances they >> can make the proposal and state Lazy Consensus is in operation." > > Meta observation: this change did not require board level approval, no > vote was taken, and in fact as far as I know Ross didn't ask anybody's > permission; he just saw something that needed to be fixed and did it. > We have lots of checks and balances built in: notifications get sent > out on the changes, the source itself is under version control, etc.
Meta comment - I notice Ross also posted to the list that he had done so - 'if it didn't happen on the list. It didn't happen'. Thus I see there's a chance to respond before the 'checks and balances' kick in. Steve Lee
