On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:32 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> >> wrote: >> > No. >> >> I disagree. Please see the discussion on private@incubator for more >> context. I'd be happy to see you reopen the question on general@incubator >> if you feel strongly about having a truly public discussion. >> >> > Votes to admit (or expunge) the roster should never be by lazy consensus. >> > I think the IPMC (or Board, in the post-incubation TLP world) would >> express >> > serious reservations. Please vote, folks, we need 3 +1's on such issues, >> > but it should reflect a clear plurality. >> >> This one is a special case of "amending" an existing proposal. >> > > We might be talking past one another... I've read the entire back-channel > discussion, no reason to rehash, unless we took away different > understandings. I > disagreed with your use of the term 'lazy consensus'. Ask for consensus > (you'll receive > it, I'm sure). Lazy consensus means that it will be changed baring an > objection. That > means that not even three people are needed to change the roster, and that > would be a > poor choice.
Sure. I honestly don't see much of a difference, but in the interest of building meta-consensus I'm not going to ask for a 'lazy consensus' (after all, at ASF it consensus all the way down ;-)). > Hopefully, we are just tripping over words, and have the same goal. I think that's the case. Thanks, Roman.
