Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPaJBx79zV1JSNL5BnPF_TxYEaW-2ZpLf+WAi6wa4QA94mFSmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAJNb-9pRGw11-Ajo2Tu5COrdLsVEZUEDy9q5qPAMby_zx4WLsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPaJBx79zV1JSNL5BnPF_TxYEaW-2ZpLf+WAi6wa4QA94mFSmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 03:02:56 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAPaJBx7YkBi12A6PMTpCjfbDoBZow-nip+r0ZG3UaTo_ogm4+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged
 [DISCUSS]
From: Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org>
To: Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org>
Cc: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf302237e7f1558104dc3f7228

--20cf302237e7f1558104dc3f7228
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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.

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.

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.

-- 
NS

--20cf302237e7f1558104dc3f7228--