hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Uma Maheswara Rao G <mahesw...@huawei.com>
Subject RE: [vote] Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws?
Date Fri, 22 Mar 2013 05:45:32 GMT
I think current procedure is good in Hadoop community to have minimum some +1's approvals in
In Hadoop we follow R-T-C policy. From the foundation voting policy "Lazy consensus cannot
be applied to code changes when the review-then-commit policy is in effect."
In Hadoop we are following this with little modifications "Lazy consensus of active committers,
but with a minimum of one +1. "

But for new committer addition 
"‚ó¶New Committer 
When a new committer is proposed for the project
Lazy consensus of active PMC members"

So, here it may be contradicting the policy from Foundations definition. So, is it make sense
to change that as "Lazy consensus of active PMC members but with 3 min +1 binding votes" ?
Here lazy consensus does not allow vetos and other condition expects min 3 '+1'. With this
we can change the definition of Lazy Consensus in hadoop bylaws also same as foundation.
Sorry if I misunderstand some bylaws here. Please clarify to me.

From: Noah Slater [nslater@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:23 AM
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Cc: Matt Foley
Subject: Re: [vote] Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws?

Swapping out "lazy consensus" for "consensus approval" seems to make sense.
But might it also be a good idea to specify how lazy consensus (as defined
in the ASF glossary, and as used throughout the foundation) can be used? I
presume Hadoop makes heavy use of lazy consensus. (This is a drive-by
posting on my behalf. I am otherwise not involved in your community.)
Examples would be a C-T-R policy, changes to the wiki, or any time someone
says "I plan to do X. If nobody objects in 72 hours, I will assume lazy

On 21 March 2013 21:44, Aaron T. Myers <atm@cloudera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Robert Evans <evans@yahoo-inc.com>
> wrote:
> > So to make this official I propose that we change the term "lazy
> > consensus" to "consensus approval" (aka s/lazy\s+consensus/consensus
> > approval/gi) in the bylaws so that it matches the terms used in the
> apache
> > foundation glossary.
> >
> > As per the by-laws this would take a "lazy majority" of active PMC
> members.
> >
> > Lazy Majority - A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and more
> > binding +1 votes than -1 votes.
> >
> >
> > Voting lasts 7 days, so it closes Thursday March 28th.
> >
> All sounds good to me, though I recommend you start a new [VOTE] thread so
> that folks realize that this thread has moved on from a discussion into an
> actual vote.
> --
> Aaron T. Myers
> Software Engineer, Cloudera

View raw message