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
