I would reserve we use lazy consensus for relatively minor things. Anything of importance should not be lazy consensus (though defining "important" might be difficult ;-))
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Marvin S. Addison <marvin.addi...@gmail.com > wrote: > I'm a PMC chair, on two PMCs, and a member at the ASF, so I figured I'd >> chime in. >> > > I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback. > > > It depends on the PMC, and what is being voted on. Most of the PMCs I'm >> familiar with don't use lazy consensus for much. >> > > Noted. It's simply a fact that the CAS project has worked on lazy > consensus for almost all decision making, both in development and project > governance. I know that kind of voting has risks, but the simplicity and > adherence to our current practice make it a net benefit. > > > There are a couple of other things I see below that differ from ASF >> PMCs. While the PMC chair is appointed by the board, it generally isn't >> a board member (unless the PMC is in trouble). The PMC generally >> recommends their chair from amongst their membership, and in a vast >> majority of cases the board accepts the recommendation. >> > > This makes more sense and it's actually a better fit for the project. I > found the Apache documentation on the ASF and PMCs fairly confusing, so > this is clarifying. > > > The other piece to point out is that voting happens via email, and >> generally must take place over several days. If it didn't happen on >> email, it didn't happen. >> > > I will be sure to explicitly state that in the final proposal. We loosely > follow this, but it would be helpful to formalize. Also, I will make a note > about suggested time frames for votes. I'm familiar with the 72h period and > that sounds reasonable. > > > It's up to the PMC to >> decide if committer == PMC. However, a PMC can unilaterally make a >> committer, they require the board's approval for a new PMC member. >> > > I'm proposing that a committer _is_ a PMC member for simplicity and since > it reflects project history where at times multiple committers were on the > steering committee. In any case we should note the difference between an > Apache PMC that requires board approval for membership changes and what > we're proposing here, which is a self-sufficient group that controls its > membership by election (other than chair, which requires board approval). > > M > > -- > You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: > scott.battag...@gmail.com > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/**display/JSG/cas-dev<http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev> > -- You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
