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 17:15:01 GMT
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

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