On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > One alternative to going for full-on majority voting is to recognize that a > larger group is much more likely to have "noisy vetoes" by requiring that > successful votes have n positive votes and m negative votes subject to some > condition on n and m. Majority requires n > m, strict Apache consensus > requires n >= 3 and m == 0. It is easy to imagine other conditions such as > n >= 4 and m <= 2 which still have some of the flavor of consensus in that > a minority can block a decision, but allow forward progress even with > constant naysayers or occasional random vetoes.
Personally, I'd suggest keeping these options in our backpocket and turning back to considering them in case a simple majority proposal runs into an opposition somehow. At this point, I'd rather try a simple solution first. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
