On 25 May 19:41, Richard Hartmann wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:08 PM Julius Volz <julius.v...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I would also want to understand a bit more specifically how this would work > > in practice though. E.g. when there are three people arguing one way on an > > issue, and one person against, and all views have been considered and > > arguments are turning in circles, can the majority (with respect to that > > discussion) just go ahead and decide / merge things? I guess in the worst > > case, when someone feels unheard, they can still call for a team-wide vote, > > but the cost of calling for that vote would then be carried by the > > minority, not the majority? So things would be more biased towards action. > > That's one possible mode of operation, yes. > > Hopefully, there would be fewer lockups by shifting from default-deny > to default-majority-ish. > > If it does not work out to our shared satisfaction, we can always > refine the governance further, e.g. introduce a Chair system though, > again, I would like to avoid that. > > > Best, > Richard
I would vote :+1: on changing to rough consensus. -- Julien Pivotto @roidelapluie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prometheus Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to prometheus-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/20200525195320.GA983523%40oxygen.
