hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws?
Date Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:11:42 GMT

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:


If you look on the foundation's page[2] on voting, you even see things like

"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



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