Consensus is a central concept in the Apache Way. If we’re not all agreed what consensus is, we need to talk.
And, not unrelated, I found Vladimir’s use of a -1 to veto a commit deeply disturbing. Not because I was on the receiving end of the vote, but because it indicated a failure to find consensus. It is the only -1 we have ever had and I would like it to be the last. Julian > On Sep 26, 2018, at 9:09 AM, Michael Mior <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can clarify my *interpretation* of what it means. My interpretation may > not be the definition we collectively agree on. I assume lazy consensus is > employed when a change is expected to be potentially controversial. If no > objections are raised, then it's safe to assume the change creates no > controversy and lazy interpretation. If objections are raised, then I > believe lazy consensus has *not* been reached. I wouldn't interpret these > objections as a veto, but I think objections raised during lazy consensus > should be addressed before moving forward. > > -- > Michael Mior > [email protected] > > > Le mer. 26 sept. 2018 à 04:51, Vladimir Sitnikov < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >> Michael>if we're going to use the term "lazy consensus" we should agree on >> what it means >> >> Could you clarify what it means? >> >> Does that mean "absolutely no responses"? >> Does that mean "a single -0 comment destroys lazy consensus"? >> Does that mean "a single +0 comment destroys lazy consensus"? >> Does that mean "any vote less than +1 kills the idea"? >> >> Vladimir >>
