As I see it, The best way to see the effect of the changes is to commit them. In SVN it's really easy to go revert if we want to go back.
I just wanted to point out that this is perfectly valid as I am a known abuser of the lazy consensus thing ;). Of course, Ariel's course of action of giving a waiting time is also valid. cheers, Pedro. --- Gio 22/12/11, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> ha scritto: > There's a confusion about declaring a > period for discussion/concurrence, which Ariel did, and CTR > which is simply doing it. > > You can rely on lazy consensus either way (i.e., silence is > consent). > > Since Ariel did declare a time period, the idea is to > actually make the time period long enough to find out if > there are really any objections. The practice is to > wait at least 72 hours to allow for the international reach > of the project. > > I never know whether someone is using "lazy consensus" > technically correctly when it is thrown into a declaration > or not, and I probably did not use the term correctly > myself. However, if a response time is set, 48 hours > is too short [;<). > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 11:10 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; > dennis.hamil...@acm.org > Subject: RE: old colored vs new monochrome icons > > 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. > >
