Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 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?
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
>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB