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

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 09:28:49AM +0000, Lars Kurth wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?

When there are no +2's *and -2's* ?

> Lars
> 

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