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 17:43:25 GMT
Sure, sometimes it is best to do nothing. But I think there's a case to be
made that a project's by-laws should be amended if they contradict standard
definitions in use by the foundation.

Additionally, I agree that consensus approval is a useful tool. (The
situation you describe.) But it is not the only way we gauge consensus. We
have majority approval, and we have lazy consensus.

That consensus can be gauged through silence (i.e. you just do something,
or propose something  and if nobody objects, you can move forward) is a
core philosophy of the foundation.


On 21 March 2013 17:37, Matt Foley <mfoley@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> There's an alternative viewpoint on this, which is that sometimes it is
> best to do nothing.
> And if a proposal can't scrape up 3 lousy +1's out of 58 committers (or 35
> PMC members),
> it's probably best to let it die a natural death.
>
> So the current definition doesn't seem bad to me.
> --Matt
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> [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
>>
>
>


-- 
NS

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