On 11/6/13 9:32 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> I thought most votes to approve committers were consensus, not lazy >>consensus. >It varies but more lazy than not I believe. But no issue either way as >far as I'm concerned. We've not have a vote that's had less than 3 +1 so >it not been an issue, the last couple of votes I called were "Lazy" and >there were no comments about that. I didn't see [LAZY] in the vote subject so I didn't realize they were lazy. In the one lazy vote to approve a donation, I didn't get any +1 votes. I want folks to realize that if they confirm the draft as written, we won't have results that show who and how many vote +1, we'll only know that nobody objected or somebody had the energy to vote +1. I'd rather we ask folks to vote one way or another when approving committers and pmc membership. Thoughts from others? > >> That seems to be the default for the HTTP project and what we've done >>in the past. >It's unclear what we done in the past because no one was sure of the >voting system in operation, but it's not been an issue (see above). >Serval other projects use lazy consensus for both committers and PMC eg >Hive, Pig, Ant, clouldstack and others. Clouldstack bylaws only have 3 >types of voting not omit consensus. > >HTTP project also have a "or by not contributing in any form to the >project for over six months." clause as well, but that seems more >controversial here. > >Basically each project is slightly different is the only conclusion you >can come to. Yes, but supposedly, HTTP project is the default unless I can ever get new language approved for Voting.html. There's been way too much noise on board@ and members@ so I haven't pushed the issue on incubator because I think folks on all three lists are overwhelmed. > >Thanks, >Justin >
