Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of adam.kocoloski@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.128.178 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] dont't abuse of "lazy concensus" on mail tagged
 [DISCUSS]
From: Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABvT1DHd0fGRJf-Ui75CQmOVuUVSC6hVAvXsePGhUwSVT3yeTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:57:35 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2C060098-B483-41F3-B5A0-25B49883D565@apache.org>
References: 
 <CAJNb-9pRGw11-Ajo2Tu5COrdLsVEZUEDy9q5qPAMby_zx4WLsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABvT1DHd0fGRJf-Ui75CQmOVuUVSC6hVAvXsePGhUwSVT3yeTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org

I'd prefer to keep a 72 hour window for lazy consensus.

Adam

On May 7, 2013, at 3:23 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Finally, I'll agree that lazy consensus can be used inappropriately, I
> just don't think I agree that it's happened yet.
>=20
> B.
>=20
>=20
> On 7 May 2013 20:07, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would like to discuss about the lazy concensus here.
>>=20
>> Side notte: I already read =
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html thanks.
>>=20
>> 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).
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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 .
>>=20
>> I reckon that some lazy concensus need an urgent response (though i
>> doubt a lazy concensus is enough in that case) so I propose
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> - benoit