incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Tue, 07 May 2013 19:23:00 GMT
I'm not sure I fully agree. All the lazy consensus's of late have had
a 72 hour window on them which is the same duration we use for couchdb
releases.

However, we can discuss what the minimum lazy consensus period can be
based on what the minimum time that community members feel they can
respond.

I don't mean this as horribly as it will sound, but, to a degree, if
someone can't take the time, in 3 days, to reply with '-1' to a
thread, perhaps that's a problem too? The whole point of lazy
consensus is to move forward quickly. We don't always need to wait for
a large number of +1's to get work done.

Finally, I'll agree that lazy consensus can be used inappropriately, I
just don't think I agree that it's happened yet.

B.


On 7 May 2013 20:07, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to discuss about the lazy concensus here.
>
> Side notte: I already read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html thanks.
>
> So these votes happend quite often this last 4 months either in
> @private or @dev ml, and I'm quietly becoming very annoyed by them.
> Especially when they expect a response in less than a week ( I would
> say month).
>
> Lazy consensus give this false idea that because no-one objected in
> time then it's OK to process. That could be true if the expected
> response was not in a short delay or asked before a we, or... Actually
> it can be asked before a we, or at any time, but we have to understand
> that sometime our  time isn't the time of other: in some countries
> that can be the holidays, bank days or some of us can be busy for any
> reason, some of us also disconnect at certain times. Other have a lot
> of email to handle per day with mostly the same priority.
>
> So I think that something tagged [DISCUSS] should at least let 2 weeks
> or better 1 month to expect a response and make any assumption. At
> least if noone still answer then the person that answered could take
> its own responsibility and consider it as a yes .
>
> I reckon that some lazy concensus need an urgent response (though i
> doubt a lazy concensus is enough in that case) so I propose
>
> If nonone object I would like to push the delay of such discussion to
> 2 weeks by default . Also i really would like that such concensus
> should be optionnal not a common thing to use to pass ideas. This
> isn't natural at all.
>
> - benoit

Mime
View raw message