Hello; --- Gio 22/12/11, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> ha scritto:
> 48 hours is too short. The > practice is a minimum of 72 hours for a lazy consensus. (I > am not arguing against your proposal.) > I have no hurry to see this in but I do have to note that this is exactly what lazy consensus is about: http://incubator.apache.org/rave/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html " Lazy Consensus means that when you are convinced that you know what the community would like to see happen you can simply assume that you already have consensus and get on with the work. You don't have to insist people discuss and/or approve your plan, and you certainly don't need to call a vote to get approval. You just assume you have the communities support unless someone says otherwise. We have a time machine (Subversion), this means that as long as you commit (or submit patches) early and often the community has plenty of opportunity to indicate disapproval. If you believe the community will support your action you can operate on lazy consensus as long as you are prepared to roll back any work should a valid objection is raised." No need to vote, no need to wait 48 hours, or three days or whatever. Pedro.
