hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws?
Date Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:15:12 GMT
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html


On 21 March 2013 17:15, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> Just thought to check the foundation's glossary of terms[1], and found:
>
> 'Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with
>> at least three binding +1 votes and no vetos.
>
>
> This is what Hadoop is calling "lazy consensus", which is defined in the
> above document as:
>
> A decision-making policy which assumes general consent if no responses are
>> posted within a defined period.
>
>
> For context, I originally brought this issue up on the CloudStack lists.
> But I was told that CloudStack copied it's initial by-laws from Hadoop. And
> maybe other incubating projects are doing the same. So it seems important
> to fix.
>
>
> On 21 March 2013 17:11, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was just reading through the by-laws[1] and it occurred to me that we
>> might have the wrong definition of lazy consensus.
>>
>> Specifically, we define it here:
>>
>> "3.2.1. Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and
>> no binding -1 votes."
>>
>> My understanding of lazy consensus is that it requires no votes
>> whatsoever. In fact, there are two modes. The first is to simply do
>> whatever it is you think is a good idea, and assume someone will speak up
>> if they disagree. The other is to state your intention, and give 72 hours
>> for people to object. If you receive no objections, you proceed.
>>
>> Neither of these situations require any votes. And in fact, the primary
>> idea behind lazy consensus is that if you hear nothing, you can proceed.
>>
>> Here's a good page about it:
>>
>> http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
>>
>> If you look on the foundation's page[2] on voting, you even see things
>> like this:
>>
>> "Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus, three +1 votes
>> are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."
>>
>> i.e. Needing three +1 votes is an alternative to lazy consensus.
>>
>> Thoughts on this?
>>
>> [1] http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
>>
>> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> NS
>>
>
>
>
> --
> NS
>



-- 
NS

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