hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: [vote] Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws?
Date Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:18:42 GMT
I personally am fine with simply changing the name in the by-laws to
"consensus approval".  Looking at the by-laws there are three places that
currently list "lazy consensus" as the voting mechanism.
Adding/reinstating a PMC member, adding/reinstating a committer, and
making a code change.  The code change already has an addendum to make it
so that there is only one +1 needed and that the waiting period can be
non-existent, so it is really its own form of voting.  For the PMC actions
I think 3 +1s is an OK barrier to meet.

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.

I am +1 (binding)

--Bobby

On 3/21/13 12:45 PM, "Noah Slater" <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

>Specifically to address your last comment, that the definition doesn't
>seem
>too bad... I agree that the concept as describe is a good one. But we have
>another name for that: consensus approval. The definition is bad because
>it
>calls this process "lazy consensus", but this already has an established
>meaning within 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
View raw message