You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> on 2013/03/10 19:52:46 UTC
Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws
Devs,
I was just reading through the by-laws we voted in (sorry, I am about a
month late in doing this, I know) and it occurred to me that we might have
the wrong definition of lazy consensus.
Specifically, we define it here:
"3.2.1. Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
binding -1 votes."
My understanding of lazy consensus is that it requires no votes whatsoever.
In fact, there are two modes. The first is to simply do whatever it is you
think is a good idea, and assume someone will speak up if they disagree.
The other is to state your intention, and give 72 hours for people to
object. If you receive no objections, you proceed.
Neither of these situations require any votes. And in fact, the primary
idea behind lazy consensus is that if you hear nothing, you can proceed.
Here's a good page about it:
http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
If you look on the foundation's page[1] on voting, you even see things like
this:
"Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus , three +1 votes
are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."
i.e. Needing three +1 votes is an alternative to lazy consensus.
I think we need to update our by-laws to fix this.
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
Thanks,
--
NS
Re: Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 05:08:26PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
> I am going to bring this up with Hadoop! I'll circle back here afterwards.
Works for me! Thanks Noah. Happy to do a round of adjustments as
necessary.
Re: Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
I am going to bring this up with Hadoop! I'll circle back here afterwards.
On 11 March 2013 02:01, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:52:46PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
> > Devs,
> >
> > I was just reading through the by-laws we voted in (sorry, I am about a
> > month late in doing this, I know) and it occurred to me that we might
> have
> > the wrong definition of lazy consensus.
> >
> > Specifically, we define it here:
> >
> > "3.2.1. Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and
> no
> > binding -1 votes."
> >
> > My understanding of lazy consensus is that it requires no votes
> whatsoever.
> > In fact, there are two modes. The first is to simply do whatever it is
> you
> > think is a good idea, and assume someone will speak up if they disagree.
> > The other is to state your intention, and give 72 hours for people to
> > object. If you receive no objections, you proceed.
> >
> > Neither of these situations require any votes. And in fact, the primary
> > idea behind lazy consensus is that if you hear nothing, you can proceed.
> >
> > Here's a good page about it:
> >
> > http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
> >
> > If you look on the foundation's page[1] on voting, you even see things
> like
> > this:
> >
> > "Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus , three +1 votes
> > are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."
> >
> > i.e. Needing three +1 votes is an alternative to lazy consensus.
> >
> > I think we need to update our by-laws to fix this.
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > NS
>
> Interesting... since I based the bylaws off of Hadoop's version, I
> wonder why they defined it with a bit of a higher hurdle.
>
> Would you like to propose a specific change? Keep in mind that the
> "actions" may need to be reviewed as well, to ensure that they match up
> with a different definition of "lazy consensus".
>
> -chip
>
--
NS
Re: Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:52:46PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
> Devs,
>
> I was just reading through the by-laws we voted in (sorry, I am about a
> month late in doing this, I know) and it occurred to me that we might have
> the wrong definition of lazy consensus.
>
> Specifically, we define it here:
>
> "3.2.1. Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
> binding -1 votes."
>
> My understanding of lazy consensus is that it requires no votes whatsoever.
> In fact, there are two modes. The first is to simply do whatever it is you
> think is a good idea, and assume someone will speak up if they disagree.
> The other is to state your intention, and give 72 hours for people to
> object. If you receive no objections, you proceed.
>
> Neither of these situations require any votes. And in fact, the primary
> idea behind lazy consensus is that if you hear nothing, you can proceed.
>
> Here's a good page about it:
>
> http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
>
> If you look on the foundation's page[1] on voting, you even see things like
> this:
>
> "Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus , three +1 votes
> are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."
>
> i.e. Needing three +1 votes is an alternative to lazy consensus.
>
> I think we need to update our by-laws to fix this.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> NS
Interesting... since I based the bylaws off of Hadoop's version, I
wonder why they defined it with a bit of a higher hurdle.
Would you like to propose a specific change? Keep in mind that the
"actions" may need to be reviewed as well, to ensure that they match up
with a different definition of "lazy consensus".
-chip