Whatever we decide on, I think it's important to ensure that +0 and -0 mean something. We want people who are skeptical (-0s) to raise their concerns and know they will have some influence. We even want those who are optimists but don't quite see the value yet (+0s) to ask questions and participate in improving the document. If those folks "in the middle" feel that their input won't matter, they are much less likely to participate.
And as observed by others, regardless of whether +/- 0 factors into whether a PUP gets adopted, it does reflect a sentiment in the group that is important to take seriously. If voting includes lots of -0's, that would indicate a lot of skepticism, and perhaps even discontent. You can imagine someone being unhappy about a change, but not wanting to stand up and be the only person to cast a veto. That person's -0 needs to factor in somehow. For these reasons, I think a "veto-or-it-passes" model would discourage participation and make it too easy to end up with processes that don't meet a broad-enough range of needs. And this is a good time for a reminder that PUPs are for process changes, which tend to affect large portions of our community, particularly developers. Having broad buy-in before making process changes is something we've strived for in the past, and I think it has served us well. "Obvious consensus" seems like a good way to describe that goal. On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: > We could use the metric that a PUP passes if there are no -1s and more > than 1/3 of the team considers it an improvement (+0 or +1). If more than > 2/3rds the team is voting -0, it probably needs more discussion. > > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Bryan Kearney <bkear...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> I liked what Brian said, pick the model. Default to change or not. If you >> guys decide to default to change, I agree with Ina that the proposal is a >> +1. So, what would all 0s mean? >> >> -- bk >> >> On 06/12/2017 11:43 AM, Ina Panova wrote: >> >>> Having at least one +1 is not impartial approach just because the >>> developer who , as you said, found the time for the research and writing >>> down the proposal obviously will vote as +1 :) >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ina Panova >>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>> >>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com >>> <mailto:amacd...@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>> This reminds me of the concept of a "Do-ocracy". >>> >>> If developers take the time to research and write up a proposal, >>> they have "done". It seems completely reasonable to default to the >>> opinion of the people that cared enough to do the work. If it isn't >>> the right decision, then someone must actively block it, simple as >>> that. >>> >>> I think the rule should be "PUP passes if we have at least one +1 >>> and no -1s". >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > -- Michael Hrivnak Principal Software Engineer, RHCE Red Hat
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
