You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2013/11/09 08:06:36 UTC
Majority vs Lazy Majority
Hi,
Someday I will get back to improving the Voting and Glossary pages, but
meanwhile, the Apache Flex PMC is still trying to construct a set of
bylaws and we are currently discussing whether there is a difference
between "Majority Approval" which is in the Glossary and "Lazy Majority"
which isn't, but is used in a lot of other project bylaws but seems to
have the same meaning.
To me, if "Lazy" means that silence give assent, I don't see how you can
the count votes of those who assent.
Thoughts?
-Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by Joseph Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Well I can assure you it’s NOT compulsory at Apache ;-).
On Nov 10, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Every American that has voted for a public office
>> knows that winning the majority has nothing to do
>> with the total population of potential voters.
> Where I'm from voting is compulsory so it has a different meaning.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Every American that has voted for a public office
> knows that winning the majority has nothing to do
> with the total population of potential voters.
Where I'm from voting is compulsory so it has a different meaning.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by Joseph Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Every American that has voted for a public office
knows that winning the majority has nothing to do
with the total population of potential voters. Let’s
not try to rationalize geekdom’s love affair with
special purpose terminology- my own pet peeve is
what the java world did to the word distribution.
That being said, what harm does it do to add this
term to the glossary? It’s already in wide use, and
that suggests we should incorporate a common definition
on the site if one presents itself.
On Nov 9, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Is there such a concept as "Lazy Majority" ?
> Yes many Apache projects define it (eg Ant, Kafka, Hadoop, Pig, Hive and others ) as does Apache HTTP. [1]
> "Lazy majority decides each issue in the release plan."
>
> Different projects however use different terms, as far as I can see "Lazy Majority" is used more than " "Majority Approval" but both have the same rules, ie 3 +1s and more +1's than -1's.
>
> My guess is that "Lazy Majority" is used because Majority implies more than 50% of possible voters need to vote.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 3:29 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...This is a bit of a mess....
Yeah - I wish projects would just refer to
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html and
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html and avoid duplicating
that information.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 19 November 2013 08:29, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:03 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9 November 2013 12:17, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> My guess is that "Lazy Majority" is used because Majority implies more than 50% of possible voters need to vote.
>>
>> My guess is that it is a misprint for Lazy Consensus....
>
> I'd say so - "lazy majority" is mentioned at
> http://ant.apache.org/bylaws.html but I didn't know there was such a
> concept in our projects.
The Ant bylaws do at least define what the terms mean [1], but
unfortunately it seems they have chosen different names from the ones
in the ASF Glossary [2]
For example:
Ant has
Consensus: For this to pass, all voters with binding votes must vote
and there can be no binding vetoes (-1). Consensus votes are rarely
required due to the impracticality of getting all eligible voters to
cast a vote.
ASF has:
'Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed
with at least three binding +1 votes and no vetos. Compare Majority
Approval.
Ant:
Lazy Consensus: Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
binding vetoes.
ASF:
Lazy consensus(Also called 'lazy approval'.): A decision-making
policy which assumes general consent if no responses are posted within
a defined period.
This is a bit of a mess.
[1] http://ant.apache.org/bylaws.html#Approvals
[2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
> I'd rather keep it simple and avoid mentioning it in the incubator docs.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
well that type of "lazy majority" is really a "majority of binding votes
cast with a quorum" which differs from "majority of binding votes cast",
"majority of votes cast" and "quorum" (i.e. the needs 3x+1 to release...
because remember you cannot veto releases ;-) though only a fool of a
release manager would go ahead with a release when there are a lot of
binding -1 votes cast )
On 19 November 2013 09:28, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:52 AM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >> ..."lazy majority" is mentioned at
> >> http://ant.apache.org/bylaws.html but I didn't know there was such a
> >> concept in our projects.
> >
> > Many projects use it. See this Google search:
> > site:apache.org "Lazy Majority"
>
> I stand corrected then.
>
> >
> > We use it at Forrest:
> > http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html
>
> And define it there as "a lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1
> votes and more binding +1 votes than -1 votes".
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html mentions majority twice,
> and in both cases it is clear to me a majority there is defined as the
> Forrest guidelines define "lazy majority".
>
> So I don't see a need for the term "lazy majority". No need to change
> in existing projects bylaws or guidelines, but IMO we should keep it
> simple for the incubator.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi David,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:52 AM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> ..."lazy majority" is mentioned at
>> http://ant.apache.org/bylaws.html but I didn't know there was such a
>> concept in our projects.
>
> Many projects use it. See this Google search:
> site:apache.org "Lazy Majority"
I stand corrected then.
>
> We use it at Forrest:
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html
And define it there as "a lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1
votes and more binding +1 votes than -1 votes".
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html mentions majority twice,
and in both cases it is clear to me a majority there is defined as the
Forrest guidelines define "lazy majority".
So I don't see a need for the term "lazy majority". No need to change
in existing projects bylaws or guidelines, but IMO we should keep it
simple for the incubator.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:03 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9 November 2013 12:17, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> My guess is that "Lazy Majority" is used because Majority implies more than 50% of possible voters need to vote.
> >
> > My guess is that it is a misprint for Lazy Consensus....
>
> I'd say so - "lazy majority" is mentioned at
> http://ant.apache.org/bylaws.html but I didn't know there was such a
> concept in our projects.
Many projects use it. See this Google search:
site:apache.org "Lazy Majority"
We use it at Forrest:
http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html
Ant was one of the projects at the time that we based ours on.
-David
> I'd rather keep it simple and avoid mentioning it in the incubator docs.
>
> -Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:03 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 November 2013 12:17, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
...
>> My guess is that "Lazy Majority" is used because Majority implies more than 50% of possible voters need to vote.
>
> My guess is that it is a misprint for Lazy Consensus....
I'd say so - "lazy majority" is mentioned at
http://ant.apache.org/bylaws.html but I didn't know there was such a
concept in our projects.
I'd rather keep it simple and avoid mentioning it in the incubator docs.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 9 November 2013 12:17, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Is there such a concept as "Lazy Majority" ?
> Yes many Apache projects define it (eg Ant, Kafka, Hadoop, Pig, Hive and others ) as does Apache HTTP. [1]
> "Lazy majority decides each issue in the release plan."
The phrase is used, but it is not defined anywhere that I could find,
so it is either a typo for something else or it is meaningless.
In both cases the document needs to be tidied up and clarified.
> Different projects however use different terms, as far as I can see "Lazy Majority" is used more than " "Majority Approval" but both have the same rules, ie 3 +1s and more +1's than -1's.
>
> My guess is that "Lazy Majority" is used because Majority implies more than 50% of possible voters need to vote.
My guess is that it is a misprint for Lazy Consensus.
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Is there such a concept as "Lazy Majority" ?
Yes many Apache projects define it (eg Ant, Kafka, Hadoop, Pig, Hive and others ) as does Apache HTTP. [1]
"Lazy majority decides each issue in the release plan."
Different projects however use different terms, as far as I can see "Lazy Majority" is used more than " "Majority Approval" but both have the same rules, ie 3 +1s and more +1's than -1's.
My guess is that "Lazy Majority" is used because Majority implies more than 50% of possible voters need to vote.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 9 November 2013 07:06, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Someday I will get back to improving the Voting and Glossary pages, but
> meanwhile, the Apache Flex PMC is still trying to construct a set of
> bylaws and we are currently discussing whether there is a difference
> between "Majority Approval" which is in the Glossary and "Lazy Majority"
> which isn't, but is used in a lot of other project bylaws but seems to
> have the same meaning.
Is there such a concept as "Lazy Majority" ?
The Glossary only has "Lazy Consensus/Lazy Approval" [1]
The Voting page [2] does not mention Lazy Majority either.
If project bylaws mention "Lazy Majority" then presumably they must
define the concept locally.
[Though what that definition might be, I have no idea]
If the bylaws don't clearly define the concept, then the PMC needs to
determine how to fix the bylaws.
But please let's not add "Lazy Majority" to the foundation pages just
because it happens to be used elsewhere (possibly ambiguously).
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus
[2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> To me, if "Lazy" means that silence give assent, I don't see how you can
> the count votes of those who assent.
Exactly; I agree that Lazy Majority does not make sense as a concept.
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Majority vs Lazy Majority
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013, at 07:06 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Someday I will get back to improving the Voting and Glossary pages, but
> meanwhile, the Apache Flex PMC is still trying to construct a set of
> bylaws and we are currently discussing whether there is a difference
> between "Majority Approval" which is in the Glossary and "Lazy Majority"
> which isn't, but is used in a lot of other project bylaws but seems to
> have the same meaning.
>
> To me, if "Lazy" means that silence give assent, I don't see how you can
> the count votes of those who assent.
Isn't lazy majority simply "at least 3 +1 votes"?
Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org