Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged
 [DISCUSS]
From: Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKmKYaAPbPDiZA3Z=X-yhm6JWWFLeRsg_XRk6XrJ=QjOP62LQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 01:39:13 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7DD548AE-FAB1-4FA1-96F6-B1C10C4C941C@apache.org>
References: 
 <CAJNb-9pRGw11-Ajo2Tu5COrdLsVEZUEDy9q5qPAMby_zx4WLsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABvT1DHd0fGRJf-Ui75CQmOVuUVSC6hVAvXsePGhUwSVT3yeTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKmKYaAPbPDiZA3Z=X-yhm6JWWFLeRsg_XRk6XrJ=QjOP62LQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org


On May 7, 2013, at 22:10 , Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@ochtman.nl> wrote:

> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> 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.
> 
> +1 to all of that.

Same.

Jan
--

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dirkjan