On Dec 23, 2013, at 12:59 PM, jan i wrote: > On Dec 23, 2013 9:05 PM, "Andrea Pescetti" <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hagar Delest wrote: >>> >>> Le 23/12/2013 17:32, jan i a écrit : >>>> >>>> I have no idea >>>> >>>> where the "lazy consensus" on sysadms goes. I am afraid we end in the >>>> same situation as last, lazy consensus == yes, but the people involved >>>> (vm-team) have not responded positively. >>> >>> Well, in this case, I guess we have to be proactive. If we wait after >>> the Christmas and New Year break, I propose that your proposal ([LAZY >>> CONSENSUS] maintenance of ooo-wiki2-vm.a.o and ooo-forums.a.o) gets >>> adopted by lazy consensus if no one objects. >> >> >> This is why it is named "lazy consensus"! No need to invoke lazy > consensus on lazy consensus... If nobody objects to the proposal by 2 > January, the proposal passes. This is simply how it works. >> >> Jan's concern was over the fact that he names other people in his > proposal (me included) as part of the team. If these people do not > explicitly agree by 2 January, it is unfair to put them in the team, even > though they will be welcome to join at any later moment. >> >> But I would find it stupid to drop the entire proposal if this happens. > Even if only 2-3 people from the proposed team of 4 give an explicit > approval, we need to start with those or we'll never move forward. And, > immediately after starting, I would call for other members to complete the > team. > > I agree with, and have been strugling how to handle that situation. Lets > say (theoretically, but still highly likely given the history) 2 situations: > a) one of the team members, answers without +1/-1 that the member cannot > live with the agrement. > b) one of th team members do not answer at all. > > We can continue with the proposal, but does the member get karma revoked ? > If not we have a strange situation with a team working to agreement and > another working differently. > > I am aware that it is not very polite to revoke karma, and I am not sure > what the right thing is. > > Hopefully this stays theoretical, but better be prepared, than having a > long discussion in january whether or not the proposal is in effect.
Question. (1) Does your proposal require a certain number? Yes or No. (I am hoping the answer is no.) (2) In the proposal is explicit agreement required to keep karma? Yes or No. (I am hoping no and any problems with actual interference should be dealt with calmly and directly with the PMC in private.) IMO - Our default policy should be to work together and we all agree we need as many as sysadmins on the team as possible. Regards, DAve > > rgds > jan I >> >> Regards, >> Andrea. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
