Devs, I was just reading through the by-laws we voted in (sorry, I am about a month late in doing this, I know) and it occurred to me that we might have the wrong definition of lazy consensus.
Specifically, we define it here: "3.2.1. Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes." My understanding of lazy consensus is that it requires no votes whatsoever. In fact, there are two modes. The first is to simply do whatever it is you think is a good idea, and assume someone will speak up if they disagree. The other is to state your intention, and give 72 hours for people to object. If you receive no objections, you proceed. Neither of these situations require any votes. And in fact, the primary idea behind lazy consensus is that if you hear nothing, you can proceed. Here's a good page about it: http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html If you look on the foundation's page[1] on voting, you even see things like this: "Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus , three +1 votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass." i.e. Needing three +1 votes is an alternative to lazy consensus. I think we need to update our by-laws to fix this. [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus Thanks, -- NS
