Hi Andre; Silence is consent. :)
Pedro. >________________________________ > From: Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> >To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:06 AM >Subject: Re: commit after review vs lazy consensus (was Re: [DISCUSS]: next >step towards graduation) > >Ahem, > >Yesterday I have created issue 121191 for this, see my mail "Cleaning up >ext_sources/" here on ooo-dev for details. >I will start deleting the files probably tomorrow, so this is a mild >form of lazy consensus. > >-Andre > >On 10.10.2012 23:45, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> >>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:05 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> ... >>>>>>> Who "praised" my axe? I recall *you* threatened to veto >>>> it :-P. >>>>>> Yes, I did. And I've learned from my error. So in this case >>>> I'd seek >>>>>> lazy consensus first ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>>> And now that you bring back the issue, I still think the cat-B >>>> files have >>>>>>> to be delete *before* graduation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Are there some still that you want to delete? Is anything stopping >>>>>> you? Is there a BZ issue for this? >>>>>> >>>>> For the record: I said axe was a proper solution for the issue, I >>>> didn't >>>>> offer to axe them myself. :) >>>>> >>>>> IMHO, opening a bugzilla for this issue is against the concept of lazy >>>>> consensus: there is consensus that we want to graduate so we >>>>> remove those files and if someone complains we consider alternatives. >>>>> >>>> Lazy consensus is when you want to do something yourself but you think >>>> it might be controversial. If you think it is not controversial, and >>>> it is reversible (as almsot everything in SVN is) then JFDI. >>>> >>> Wrong concept: >>> >> Actually, is not wrong at all. I think you are confusing two >> different things: 1) *assuming* lazy consensus and 2) stating lazy >> consensus. When you JFDI you are assuming lazy consensus. When you >> state it and wait 72 hours you are being more careful, leaving more >> room for doubt. >> >>> http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html >>> >>> >>> "Lazy Consensus means that when you are convinced that you know what the >>> community would like to see happen you can simply assume that you already >>> have consensus and get on with the work. You don't have to insist people >>> discuss and/or approve your plan, and you certainly don't need to call a >>> vote to get approval. You just assume you have the communities support >>> unless someone says otherwise." >>> >>> For controversial issues there is the 72 hours rule, but lazy consensus >>> strictly speaking, does not depend on controversiality.The idea is that >>> once we name someone committer, he/she is expected to have criteria to >>> advance on his own, and although some mentorship may be optional we don't >>> expect a committer to depend on others to review and approve.. >>> >>> What doesn't scale IMHO.. is that committers *have* to ask for review, at >>> least it doesn't seem the Apache way to me. >>> >> For items that you think may be controversial you *should* state lazy >> consensus and give 72 hours to object. Otherwise you risk wasting >> your time, since any committer can veto your commit. Better to know >> that up front than after the fact and be forced to revert your change. >> We know that this doesn't scale, since it can lead to week's of >> broken builds, as you know. >> >> I'm assuming you actually understand the above and are merely being >> argumentative. So I'll stop my co-enablement of this pointless >> discussion after this post. >> >> And btw, as a PMC member you might get into the practice of quoting >> this project's statement of this practice rather than hunting for it >> on unrelated websites: >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html >> >> >> -Rob >> >> >>> Pedro. > > > >
