My point is that the doc is not entirely consistent. But you are choosing to focus on the definition of a “code vote” and entirely ignoring the definition (and notion) of consensus. In Apache votes are a formality, after consensus has been reached, so consensus is more important than votes.
I am convinced that consensus (and unanimity) is possible. To achieve it, people need to listen to each other’s concerns in good faith, and then compromise. If we are operating on the basis of consensus, all of this stuff will be a lot more fun for everyone. Julian > On Sep 27, 2018, at 9:17 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Julian>Lazy consensus is not a vote > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification > Apache/voting> Unless a *vote has been declared as using lazy consensus* , > > It implies that "vote can use lazy consensus". > > Julian>The dictionary definition of consensus is “unanimity” > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus > Apache/glossary> Also called '*lazy* *approval*'. > > Julian>unanimity > > It is not possible. > > Vladimir
