couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Thu, 09 May 2013 02:59:08 GMT
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> On 9 May 2013 01:02, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I would be happy to use the subject tag PROPOSAL when lazy consensus is
>> being used, to separate these threads out from general DISCUSS threads.
>> Please note, however, that in my mental model of how Apache works, a
>> DISCUSS thread *is* a discussion that will default to lazy consensus. That
>> is how I have always used that tag. If you think it's confusing, let's
>> propose a new tag.
>>
>
> I will note, actually, that the tag I put in the email thread is besides
> the point. That's just a matter of courtesy. The default model that we
> operate under is that if I announce my intentions to the dev@ list, then
> you have 72 hours to object.
>
> This works for two reasons:
>
> 1) People are elected to committer, primarily, because we *trust* them.
> That means we trust them to act in the best interests of the project.
>
> 2) If you care about this stuff, you need to be monitoring dev@ and you
> need to be voicing your objections. If you are not doing this, you cannot
> expect the project to slow down to suit your pace.

I'm following and agree. I want things to move quickly and implicitly trust the
judgment of our committers. I think PROPOSAL might be a good tag to use when
you want to give the courtesy of a formal opportunity to veto.

However, to restate my position, DISCUSS had a suggestion to me that something
warranted discussion. Your recent threads on workflow all were great. We should
circle back and conclude them. When something warrants good discussion, it's
worthwhile to get as much input as we can, and thus it suggests a longer window
would be appropriate to me.

>
> There are some things that are too important to leave to lazy consensus.
> For those things, we should explicitly say "okay, if you're trying to do X
> then you need a formal vote with majority approval".
>
> It sounds to me like you've been caught off-guard because a few decisions
> have been made and you didn't have time to contribute. I would suggest two
> things. 1) Set up email filters so that DISCUSS, VOTE, NOTICE threads get
> priority in your inbox. 2) Come up with a list of things you think we
> should not leave to lazy consensus.

Sounds like we need a well-understood set of these.

If we can just enumerate them all I'd be happy to clean it up and make
a definitions file.

Noah, is this included in your idea of bylaws, or is this a separate document?

Mime
View raw message