couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Fri, 10 May 2013 21:30:13 GMT
Cool!

BTW, that should have read:

> PROPOSAL - This is a concrete proposal with lazy consensus in effect and
a 72 hour time limit


On 10 May 2013 22:27, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> > I am not thrilled about the idea of increasing lazy consensus time. If
> > you're engaged with the mailing list, then you can pitch in. If not, then
> > things are going to happen in your absence. I think that three days is a
> > fair trade-off between wanting to move quickly, and wanting to make sure
> > that people with day-jobs can contribute in their spare time.
> >
> > Note that some projects have it in their by-laws that weekends and
> holidays
> > don't count. I think I would be +0 on that change, if somebody wanted to
> > propose it.
> >
> > I would ask though: what problem are we actually trying to solve here?
> I'm
> > not aware of any instance when something passed on lazy consensus that
> was
> > later considered to be a mistake. And by extension, I know of zero
> > instances where an increased waiting period would have changed anything.
> >
> > So why bother? :)
> >
> > However, I do think we have some confusion about how decision-making
> > actually happens. Like, if I want to do X, is lazy consensus okay? Do I
> > need a vote? If I need a vote, what sort of vote? Majority approval?
> > Majority consensus? Single Transferable Vote? I think we ought to discuss
> > these things, and document them in a set of by-laws.
> >
> > And yes, I use "NOTICE" to mean "this thing happened" or "this thing will
> > happen". i.e. It's not something I'm opening up for discussion or lazy
> > consensus. It's just a statement of intention, or fact.
> >
> > I think perhaps it would be a good idea to document the tags we're
> expected
> > to use. (Though, I think, it can only ever be a recommendation. People
> will
> > forget, etc.)
> >
> > I am happy to start using "PROPOSAL" to mean "this is a proposal and lazy
> > consensus is in effect".
> >
> > Okay, so I just read this again:
> >
> > http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
> >
> > Wow. What a great document.
> >
> > So, it makes it clear that you can actually just *assume* lazy consensus
> in
> > everything you do. (Very important!) So no need to explicitly start a
> > thread to try and get it. If you're confident, you can just go ahead and
> do
> > the thing. Woop.
>
> Yep. That's what I was after with my definition clarification. In line
> with what I was saying.
>
> >
> > So, to summarise how I think we should document this in our by-laws:
> >
> > 1) Most of the time, you can assume you have consensus for whatever it is
> > you want to do. So have at it!
>
> Yes. Yes. As above. Yes.
>
> >
> > 2) Some of the time, you might be a little unsure. In those instances,
> you
> > should make a proposal to the dev@ list, and tag the subject with
> > "PROPOSAL". Mention that lazy consensus is in effect, and after 72 hours
> > you can proceed.
>
> +1
>
> >
> > 3) There are some specific things that always need a proposal to be made.
> > That is, you cannot assume consensus. You must make the proposal, and
> give
> > 72 hours for people to object. Those things are: [...]
>
> +1
>
> >
> > And how about this for the tags we're using:
> >
> > DISCUSS - This is an open discussion with no time limit
> >
> > REQUEST - This is a request for some action to be taken (prepare release
> > notes, testing, merge, etc)
> >
> > PROPOSAL - This is a concrete proposal with consensus in effect and a 72
> > hour time limit
> >
> > VOTE - This is a formal vote with a 72 hour time limit
> >
> > NOTICE - This is a notice of action taken, or action about to be taken
> > (i.e. no discussion or consensus needed)
> >
> > ANNOUNCE - This is a project level announcement
>
> +1
>
> I think PROPOSAL helps here. This way I can filter VOTE and PROPOSAL
> and make sure I make time to address those threads when I have an
> opinion, and to do it within 72 hours. I would be +1 on not counting
> weekends.
>
> And this agrees with my assessment that DISCUSS is not really the
> place to set a time limit.
>
> Benoit, does this address your concerns? I've said my interpretation
> of your objections but I don't want to misrepresent you. When I read
> "abuse" I read it as "A DISCUSS thread is really not the place to
> expect a fast response and therefore taking action after 72 hours
> feels like an abuse."
>



-- 
NS

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message