On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:42 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 June 2013 00:24, Tim Williams <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Alan Cabrera <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm confused. I thought that only a 72 hour lazy consensus was needed to >>> start a new lab. >> >> You're kinda right, lazy consensus, but our bylaws define lazy >> consensus as "at least three +1 and no -1, 72 hours"[0]. There were >> only 2 binding +1's in this case... Given our nature, I was supposing >> we could just relax the 72 hour bit in this case. That clear up your >> confusion? Personally, I'd be supportive of moving to lazy approval >> at some point, but that doesn't change the current quandary > > That's a strange definition of "lazy" consensus; it's not how it > operates in Incubator or Commons. > Nor is it as per the ASF Glossary: > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus
Yeah, I saw the phrase "lazy consensus" and skipped over the rest of the verbiage. > I would say the Labs rule is ConsensusApproval: > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval That makes sense to me. Regards, Alan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
