couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Kocoloski <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Tue, 07 May 2013 19:57:35 GMT
I'd prefer to keep a 72 hour window for lazy consensus.


On May 7, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Robert Newson <> wrote:

> I'm not sure I fully agree. All the lazy consensus's of late have had
> a 72 hour window on them which is the same duration we use for couchdb
> releases.
> However, we can discuss what the minimum lazy consensus period can be
> based on what the minimum time that community members feel they can
> respond.
> I don't mean this as horribly as it will sound, but, to a degree, if
> someone can't take the time, in 3 days, to reply with '-1' to a
> thread, perhaps that's a problem too? The whole point of lazy
> consensus is to move forward quickly. We don't always need to wait for
> a large number of +1's to get work done.
> Finally, I'll agree that lazy consensus can be used inappropriately, I
> just don't think I agree that it's happened yet.
> B.
> On 7 May 2013 20:07, Benoit Chesneau <> wrote:
>> I would like to discuss about the lazy concensus here.
>> Side notte: I already read thanks.
>> So these votes happend quite often this last 4 months either in
>> @private or @dev ml, and I'm quietly becoming very annoyed by them.
>> Especially when they expect a response in less than a week ( I would
>> say month).
>> Lazy consensus give this false idea that because no-one objected in
>> time then it's OK to process. That could be true if the expected
>> response was not in a short delay or asked before a we, or... Actually
>> it can be asked before a we, or at any time, but we have to understand
>> that sometime our  time isn't the time of other: in some countries
>> that can be the holidays, bank days or some of us can be busy for any
>> reason, some of us also disconnect at certain times. Other have a lot
>> of email to handle per day with mostly the same priority.
>> So I think that something tagged [DISCUSS] should at least let 2 weeks
>> or better 1 month to expect a response and make any assumption. At
>> least if noone still answer then the person that answered could take
>> its own responsibility and consider it as a yes .
>> I reckon that some lazy concensus need an urgent response (though i
>> doubt a lazy concensus is enough in that case) so I propose
>> If nonone object I would like to push the delay of such discussion to
>> 2 weeks by default . Also i really would like that such concensus
>> should be optionnal not a common thing to use to pass ideas. This
>> isn't natural at all.
>> - benoit

View raw message