I am going to bring this up with Hadoop! I'll circle back here afterwards.
On 11 March 2013 02:01, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:52:46PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote: > > 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 > > Interesting... since I based the bylaws off of Hadoop's version, I > wonder why they defined it with a bit of a higher hurdle. > > Would you like to propose a specific change? Keep in mind that the > "actions" may need to be reviewed as well, to ensure that they match up > with a different definition of "lazy consensus". > > -chip > -- NS
