incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randall Leeds <randall.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Fri, 10 May 2013 21:27:15 GMT
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> I am not thrilled about the idea of increasing lazy consensus time. If
> you're engaged with the mailing list, then you can pitch in. If not, then
> things are going to happen in your absence. I think that three days is a
> fair trade-off between wanting to move quickly, and wanting to make sure
> that people with day-jobs can contribute in their spare time.
>
> Note that some projects have it in their by-laws that weekends and holidays
> don't count. I think I would be +0 on that change, if somebody wanted to
> propose it.
>
> I would ask though: what problem are we actually trying to solve here? I'm
> not aware of any instance when something passed on lazy consensus that was
> later considered to be a mistake. And by extension, I know of zero
> instances where an increased waiting period would have changed anything.
>
> So why bother? :)
>
> However, I do think we have some confusion about how decision-making
> actually happens. Like, if I want to do X, is lazy consensus okay? Do I
> need a vote? If I need a vote, what sort of vote? Majority approval?
> Majority consensus? Single Transferable Vote? I think we ought to discuss
> these things, and document them in a set of by-laws.
>
> And yes, I use "NOTICE" to mean "this thing happened" or "this thing will
> happen". i.e. It's not something I'm opening up for discussion or lazy
> consensus. It's just a statement of intention, or fact.
>
> I think perhaps it would be a good idea to document the tags we're expected
> to use. (Though, I think, it can only ever be a recommendation. People will
> forget, etc.)
>
> I am happy to start using "PROPOSAL" to mean "this is a proposal and lazy
> consensus is in effect".
>
> Okay, so I just read this again:
>
> http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
>
> Wow. What a great document.
>
> So, it makes it clear that you can actually just *assume* lazy consensus in
> everything you do. (Very important!) So no need to explicitly start a
> thread to try and get it. If you're confident, you can just go ahead and do
> the thing. Woop.

Yep. That's what I was after with my definition clarification. In line
with what I was saying.

>
> So, to summarise how I think we should document this in our by-laws:
>
> 1) Most of the time, you can assume you have consensus for whatever it is
> you want to do. So have at it!

Yes. Yes. As above. Yes.

>
> 2) Some of the time, you might be a little unsure. In those instances, you
> should make a proposal to the dev@ list, and tag the subject with
> "PROPOSAL". Mention that lazy consensus is in effect, and after 72 hours
> you can proceed.

+1

>
> 3) There are some specific things that always need a proposal to be made.
> That is, you cannot assume consensus. You must make the proposal, and give
> 72 hours for people to object. Those things are: [...]

+1

>
> And how about this for the tags we're using:
>
> DISCUSS - This is an open discussion with no time limit
>
> REQUEST - This is a request for some action to be taken (prepare release
> notes, testing, merge, etc)
>
> PROPOSAL - This is a concrete proposal with consensus in effect and a 72
> hour time limit
>
> VOTE - This is a formal vote with a 72 hour time limit
>
> NOTICE - This is a notice of action taken, or action about to be taken
> (i.e. no discussion or consensus needed)
>
> ANNOUNCE - This is a project level announcement

+1

I think PROPOSAL helps here. This way I can filter VOTE and PROPOSAL
and make sure I make time to address those threads when I have an
opinion, and to do it within 72 hours. I would be +1 on not counting
weekends.

And this agrees with my assessment that DISCUSS is not really the
place to set a time limit.

Benoit, does this address your concerns? I've said my interpretation
of your objections but I don't want to misrepresent you. When I read
"abuse" I read it as "A DISCUSS thread is really not the place to
expect a fast response and therefore taking action after 72 hours
feels like an abuse."

Mime
View raw message