On 06 Dec 18:05, Bjoern Rabenstein wrote: > YES > > For the record: > > While I agree with the proposal, I do not think it requires a > vote. I'm mostly mentioning it here so that nobody will see this as a > precedent or a role model that we will require votes from now on on > every new repository in the Prometheus GH org or something. > > I think of moving a repository inte the Prometheus GH org as a > technical decision. But even if it is considered non-technical, I > don't read the governance as "any non-technical decision needs a > vote". A vote is only needed if a team member "deems it > necessary". Now that might be exactly the case here, but then I would > like to understand why. I do not expect any controversies here. And > even if they happened, I would only consider a vote after they have > shown up, not proactively.
I agree with you - this is not mandatory per governance - and new repositories have popped up in the Prometheus org without a vote - such as Promlens. We already discussed the maintainership of the exporter via lazy consensus on the private mailing list, as per our governance. I had two things in mind when calling the actual move to a vote: 1. I considered that the Windows exporter had a large community of users and that taking the decision in public would be good for the community. Some people might object for various reasons, so it made sense to me to do it in public. 2. I felt that the one week delay would serve us best than the few days that lazy consensus allows. This gives a proper date to end the vote and people who want to react know that there is a deadline. I don't expect us to reach 1/2 of the Prometheus team voting within a week, because it's not a majority vote. I wanted this to be time-framed somehow. When I look at each point individually, I would not have called a vote. But when I see them together, then this met (my) bar for a vote. > In yet other words: I think voting is mostly meant for formal > decisions (governance changes, team membership changes). Other > decisions should only be voted on as a last resort. If that happens a > lot, it points towards a problem. We have been there, and luckily got > out of it. From that perspective, I would prefer if we did not call > votes lightheartedly. I do not think we will start voting lightheartedly because of this one vote. This is the second public vote this year, and the other one was in February. We also have precedent of new repos added and even archived without a vote, so I don't expect this to be the norm. Informal, lazy consensus is the default in Prometheus-team, as the low number of public votes held this year shows. -- 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/Y4%2B8pR2WOBxKG69Y%40nixos.
