couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Thu, 09 May 2013 06:27:10 GMT
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Noah Slater <> wrote:
> On 9 May 2013 01:02, Noah Slater <> 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.

This mail is not about trusting or not people. This not the topic at
all. I tend to ignore people I don't trust. Also this isn't because
you're interested in a topic that you have to be connected every-time.
 And I do think that important decisions can't be done on lazy
consensus without to make sure you targeted most of the people that
needed to be aware. This how it works, even in companies that take
care about people.

This thread is about trying to fix the usage of the "lazy discuss
votes". If  they  are used as a tool to pass ideas and if they really
accept to be denied then I am strongly asking to adapt the delay
depending on the importance on what is asked. Again I'm not speaking
about code.

But lazy consensus, or votes shouldn't be used as the default to make
decisions imo.

> 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..

You're wrong. What annoyed me is the use of lazy consensus as the
default, and passing decisions based on silence of others. Some
decisions need thinking. more than 72 hours. Especially when they come
from nowhere.

> So no, I don't think anybody has "abused" anything. Unless you mean to
> suggest that somebody is being tricky and is trying to "slip something
> past". That would be a very serious allegation, so you should make that
> explicit if you believe it to be the case.
> Again, if you have some exceptions in mind (releases, new committers, new
> PMC members, new chairs are all good examples) please bring them to the
> list, and we can start our first draft of the by-laws.

This isn't the topic of this thread and I made the intent perfectly
clear imo. This topic is about revisit the way lazy consensus are used
in the couchdb project.

- benoit

View raw message