Yes, ignoring our egregious mis-use of that term, I am +1 on your idea. Though, perhaps 3/4 is safer.
Consensus is important, yes. But the bigger the PMC, the harder it is to achieve. And more often than not, I see no reason to block an action when a supermajority are clearly in favour of it. Let's not trade hard-nosed consensus for sclerosis. On 19 July 2013 16:32, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > As it stands now, we currently use a "Lazy Consensus" model (yes Noah, I > know we didn't define that term correctly as of now, but I think that's > a different discussion). We currently have that term defined as: > > > Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no > > binding -1 votes. > > I'd like to propose that we change the PMC and committer voting rule to > use the Lazy 2/3 Majority approach defined as: > > > Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding votes and twice as > > many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes. > > Are there any objections to me starting a VOTE on this change? > -- NS
