couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Wed, 08 May 2013 20:08:54 GMT

I think lazy consensus is valuable, but I think it's antithetical to [DISCUSS].

If something should be discussed, it should be open for some time.

I think the sensible way to do things would be to have discussion open
for a week or two and then a lazy consensus email summarizing the
discussion and what consensus the OP believes we have. That could be
just 72 hours, but at that point the discussion has already happened
and the 72 hours is a formality to ensure that people have a chance to
quickly disagree about what the discussion yielded.

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM, 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