Since this is an Apache project, we should use the Apache definition of "lazy consensus." ( https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus)
> A decision-making policy which assumes general consent if no responses are posted within a defined period. Per this definition, I agree with Julian that lazy consensus was *not* reached on this decision. You're correct that there were no -1 votes, but there were responses, some with reasonable objections. -- Michael Mior mm...@apache.org Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 10:08, Vladimir Sitnikov < sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Julian>You said upfront you were going to use lazy consensus. > > I'm afraid I fail to understand what do you mean by consensus. > It would probably help if you provided a definition of "consensus being > reached" vs "consensus not being reached". > > We can't (and shouldn't) wait forever for some unknown future opinions. > > I see "in-doubt" replies, however I don't see "-1" votes. > > CALCITE-2458 was created on August, 8. > It is more than enough to collect objections. > > Vladimir >
