incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Review of Forums Agreement
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:58:16 GMT
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Oct 18, 2011 1:56 AM, "Rob Weir" <> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <>
> > The stated [DISCUSS] expiration of midnight, today, 2011-10-17T24:00Z
has arrived.
> >
> > The discussion has quieted and there appears to be no objection to
conducting a [VOTE] ratifying the PPMC acceptance of the proposal, with the
modest adjustments that were made.
> >
> > On a different thread, it was observed that, since there is no further
discussion, and there was no opposition, the proposal should be considered
ratified, a sort of lazy consensus:
> > <
> >
> > I want to be clear, that this [DISCUSS] was not for voting but to review
the proposal in preparation for voting.  Although it might be assumed that
there is no objection to the proposal's adoption by the PPMC, that was not
the question.
> >

This is fundamental to the process of lazy consensus. If an objection is not
raised during discussion how can people consider the merit of that
objection? There should be no discussion in a vote thread, all opinions
should already have been heard.

> > I am also concerned that the Forum operators are being
denied an important ceremonial act on our part.
> >

On the contrary. Avoiding the need to vote is the most important part of
consensus building in an Apache project.

Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about getting
stiff done.

> > Since it would take as long to introduce a lazy consensus, now, as to
actually conduct the [VOTE], I intend to go ahead with the [VOTE] once I
come up with an appropriate wording and message.  Then it will all be clear,
won't it?
> >

If there are no objections and the discussion has run it's course then one
can assume lazy consensus has already been achieved.

All that being said, this is a new community, calling the odd vote that is
not necessary will not cause harm. Getting bogged down in endless process
will, however cause delays and frustration. My post is about the longer

> Actually, I object to the ceremony of a poorly motivated vote..  There
> were no objections to the proposal.  The forum volunteers should go
> ahead and implement the proposal.


If Dennis really feels it is necessary to give a last chance for objection
(it's good to be inclusive) simply state that we believe consensus has been
reached. In the meantime, if I were a forum volunteer I'd be making my
preparations already. The volunteers will be doing the work, the only person
who can object now is someone implementing an alternative and no such person
has been seen in all the time discussing.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message