Re: [MirageOS-devel] [PATCH 3/3] Significant changes to decision making; some new roles and minor changes

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/08/2016 14:01, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> On 12.08.16 at 14:53, <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12/08/2016 13:41, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12.08.16 at 01:13, <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +### Lazy Consensus {#lazyconsensus}
>>>> +
>>>>[snip]
>>>> +
>>>> +Objections by stake-holders should be expressed using the
>>>>[conventions
>>>> +above](#expressingopinion) to make disagreements easily identifiable.
>>>> +
>>>> +__Passed/Failed:__
>>>> +
>>>> +-   Failed: A single **-2** by a stake-holder whose approval is
>>>>necessary
>>>> +-   Failed: **-1**'s by all stake-holder whose approval is necessary
>>>> +-   Passed: In all other situations
>>>
>>>Hmm, that means all -1's except a single 0 would already be a pass?
>> 
>> That is not the intention. If we have only -1's and 0's it should be a
>> fail. 
>> Let me fix this in the next revisions.
>> 
>> How about: 
>> +-   Failed: Only **-1** or **0** votes by all stake-holder whose
>>approval
>> is necessary
>
>That would still leave 10 -1's overruled by a single +1.
>
>> Although maybe someone can come up with a clearer way to express this.
>
>Maybe when there are no +2's, simply take the sum of all votes,
>and require it to be non-negative?

That would work. Any other opinions?
Lars

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel