incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject RE: old colored vs new monochrome icons
Date Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:09:34 GMT
As I see it,

The best way to see the effect of the changes is to
commit them. In SVN it's really easy to go revert
if we want to go back.

I just wanted to point out that this is perfectly
valid as I am a known abuser of the lazy consensus
thing ;).

Of course, Ariel's course of action of giving a
waiting time is also valid.

cheers,

Pedro.

--- Gio 22/12/11, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> ha scritto:

> There's a confusion about declaring a
> period for discussion/concurrence, which Ariel did, and CTR
> which is simply doing it.
> 
> You can rely on lazy consensus either way (i.e., silence is
> consent).
> 
> Since Ariel did declare a time period, the idea is to
> actually make the time period long enough to find out if
> there are really any objections.  The practice is to
> wait at least 72 hours to allow for the international reach
> of the project.
> 
> I never know whether someone is using "lazy consensus"
> technically correctly when it is thrown into a declaration
> or not, and I probably did not use the term correctly
> myself.  However, if a response time is set, 48 hours
> is too short [;<).
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 11:10
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Subject: RE: old colored vs new monochrome icons
> 
> Hello;
> 
> --- Gio 22/12/11, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
> ha scritto:
> 
> > 48 hours is too short.  The
> > practice is a minimum of 72 hours for a lazy
> consensus. (I
> > am not arguing against your proposal.)
> >
>  
> I have no hurry to see this in but I do have to note that
> this is exactly what lazy consensus is about:
> 
> http://incubator.apache.org/rave/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
> 
> " Lazy Consensus means that when you are convinced that you
> know what the community would like to see happen you can
> simply assume that you already have consensus and get on
> with the work. You don't have to insist people discuss
> and/or approve your plan, and you certainly don't need to
> call a vote to get approval. You just assume you have the
> communities support unless someone says otherwise.
> 
> We have a time machine (Subversion), this means that as
> long as you commit (or submit patches) early and often the
> community has plenty of opportunity to indicate disapproval.
> If you believe the community will support your action you
> can operate on lazy consensus as long as you are prepared to
> roll back any work should a valid objection is raised."
> 
> No need to vote, no need to wait 48 hours, or three days
> or whatever.
> 
> Pedro.
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message