Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop, mail # general - Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Incorrect definition of lazy consensus in by-laws?
Matt Foley 2013-03-21, 17:37
There's an alternative viewpoint on this, which is that sometimes it is
best to do nothing.
And if a proposal can't scrape up 3 lousy +1's out of 58 committers (or 35
PMC members),
it's probably best to let it die a natural death.

So the current definition doesn't seem bad to me.
--Matt
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
>
>
> On 21 March 2013 17:15, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Just thought to check the foundation's glossary of terms[1], and found:
> >
> > 'Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with
> >> at least three binding +1 votes and no vetos.
> >
> >
> > This is what Hadoop is calling "lazy consensus", which is defined in the
> > above document as:
> >
> > A decision-making policy which assumes general consent if no responses
> are
> >> posted within a defined period.
> >
> >
> > For context, I originally brought this issue up on the CloudStack lists.
> > But I was told that CloudStack copied it's initial by-laws from Hadoop.
> And
> > maybe other incubating projects are doing the same. So it seems important
> > to fix.
> >
> >
> > On 21 March 2013 17:11, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I was just reading through the by-laws[1] and it occurred to me that we
> >> might have the wrong definition of lazy consensus.
> >>
> >> Specifically, we define it here:
> >>
> >> "3.2.1. Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and
> >> no binding -1 votes."
> >>
> >> My understanding of lazy consensus is that it requires no votes
> >> whatsoever. In fact, there are two modes. The first is to simply do
> >> whatever it is you think is a good idea, and assume someone will speak
> up
> >> if they disagree. The other is to state your intention, and give 72
> hours
> >> for people to object. If you receive no objections, you proceed.
> >>
> >> Neither of these situations require any votes. And in fact, the primary
> >> idea behind lazy consensus is that if you hear nothing, you can proceed.
> >>
> >> Here's a good page about it:
> >>
> >> http://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
> >>
> >> If you look on the foundation's page[2] on voting, you even see things
> >> like this:
> >>
> >> "Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus, three +1 votes
> >> are required for a code-modification proposal to pass."
> >>
> >> i.e. Needing three +1 votes is an alternative to lazy consensus.
> >>
> >> Thoughts on this?
> >>
> >> [1] http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
> >>
> >> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> --
> >> NS
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > NS
> >
>
>
>
> --
> NS
>