incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged [DISCUSS]
Date Wed, 08 May 2013 04:27:33 GMT
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This si another topic. Also votes on release need a majority of
> approval, and are done on something that *should* have been tested
> before the vote. But this is another topic.
>
>
>>
>> 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?
>
> Not really. People are not expected to be on their computer all the
> time. Some are disconnecting when they go in vacations for real. Some
> can't connect at all to a public network because of their customer or
> else for some time. The fact is that you can't expect that people
> distributed in the world and work synchronously with you most of the
> time. Dropping a mail on the mailing-;list on big topics an expecting
> an answer in 72h is not really fear. Until you expect that people
> works in sync on that topic.
>
>  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.
>
>
> Lazy consensus is simply an announcement of 'silence gives assent.' When
> someone wants to determine the sense of the community this way,"
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.htm
>
>
> This is what I mean. And -1 can be properly ignored in lazy
> concenssus. Lazy consensus are not about looking for a consensus at
> all. A way to confirm an idea without any real discussion. A way to
> make sure you're not the only one to think that way. I do think that
> lazy consensus shouldn't be use for important topics that engage all
> the community.
>
> And I do think that asking for a short time in recent topics was used
> as a convenience. They didn't require so much urgency. They could have
> been handled in the week. Lot of projects outside couchdb do this way.
> Even in companies.
>
>>
>> Finally, I'll agree that lazy consensus can be used inappropriately, I
>> just don't think I agree that it's happened yet.
>
> Some were borderline imo.
>
> To take an example I don't think that the merge of bigcouch should be
> done on lazy consensus, it should be a full vote. Because ii is more
> than a technical changes. It can also be considered as a switch in the
> philosophy of the project so giving more time to people to think about
> it would be interesting. Giving the possibility to veto it or to
> express their opinion too.  It may not change the result at all and
> probably won't , but that not a reason.
>
> - benoit

As a final note I would like to quote the apache page above again:

    Reasons for Votes

    People tend to avoid conflict and thrash around looking for
something to substitute somebody in charge, a rule, a process,
stagnation. None of these tend to be very good substitutes for doing
the hard work of resolving the conflict.


- benoit

Mime
View raw message