Good questions, John. At Day, the use of a veto was a rare occurrence. So it wasn’t used for “give me a minute”. Which is not to say that their usage was right or wrong, but it did work for them.
Generally speaking you’d only give a +1 if you had thought it through. So in practice if three people gave a +1 it would pretty unlikely for someone else to veto. And of course someone could always come along later and say “oh shit, wait a minute…” (in fact it might even be someone who had previously given a +1). The scheme is just meant to speed up the normal course of things. Cheers, Jeff. > On 21 Apr 2019, at 21:03, John Beard <john.j.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > > Reminds me of the scoring we used to do code review on Gerrit, with a > different threshold. That worked well. > > Is there a minimum time to wait for a -1? If a reviewer didn't see the mail > before three +1s, their veto is too late. But if they were checking their > mail earlier, the veto would count. Since KiCad is a trans-continental team > and core people can be busy in real life, slow mail replies can happen. > > And also the etiquette for a "delay until I can review properly" veto. If we > want people to be free to exercise that ability in good faith without feeling > shy about blocking while they check it out, it should be called out as > allowed and encouraged. > > Cheers, > > John > > On 21 April 2019 20:34:23 BST, Tomasz Wlostowski <tomasz.wlostow...@cern.ch> > wrote: > On 21/04/2019 18:08, Jeff Young wrote: > In my last few years at Adobe I worked with Day Software in Switzerland which > we had just acquired. They did a lot of open-source stuff with Apache and > had this neat decision-making scheme (which may have originated at Apache — > I’m unaware of its source): > > If you need direction on something, you send an email to the list. (This > part is no different than what we do today.) > > If someone agrees, they reply with “+1”. > > If someone wants to halt progress until either some discussion is had or > until another direction is chosen they veto with a “-1”. > > When you accumulate three +1s and are clear of -1s you’re good to go. > > If you do get one or more -1s you’re blocked until those folks change their > input to either a “+0” or a “+1”. > > If you haven’t yet reached three +1s after a time-out period (I think we used > a week but it might have been two), but you are clear of -1s, you can send a > message to the list indicating a default-consensus and go ahead and implement > it. > > Might this be useful for us? > +1. > > T. > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp> > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
