I can clarify my *interpretation* of what it means. My interpretation may not be the definition we collectively agree on. I assume lazy consensus is employed when a change is expected to be potentially controversial. If no objections are raised, then it's safe to assume the change creates no controversy and lazy interpretation. If objections are raised, then I believe lazy consensus has *not* been reached. I wouldn't interpret these objections as a veto, but I think objections raised during lazy consensus should be addressed before moving forward.
-- Michael Mior mm...@apache.org Le mer. 26 sept. 2018 à 04:51, Vladimir Sitnikov < sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Michael>if we're going to use the term "lazy consensus" we should agree on > what it means > > Could you clarify what it means? > > Does that mean "absolutely no responses"? > Does that mean "a single -0 comment destroys lazy consensus"? > Does that mean "a single +0 comment destroys lazy consensus"? > Does that mean "any vote less than +1 kills the idea"? > > Vladimir >
