In this model of where only -1 votes stop the PUP from passing, wouldn’t it mean that there needn't be any consensus at all? In other words we could effectively strike the language about consensus from PUP-1. This model makes me worried that people other than those casting -1 won’t bother to vote or participate since only -1 votes matter.
I personally like the idea of having at least 30% that are +1 or +0. This means that enough -0 votes can still block the vote, and also +0 votes goes towards helping the PUP pass. Thus +0 and -0 would both matter. I think this is a good compromise between the extremes of "broad buy-in" and "default to change." David On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > We should (I thought we did) adopt a process that favors change and does > not have a "broad buy-in requirement". Any change that doesn't harm the > project should be allowed without broad buy-in. This empowers even a single > individual to enact change. This makes Pulp better because: > > * Everyone is empowered. A single individual can have a meaningful impact. > * Anyone can stop an idea that will negatively affect the project or > community via veto. > * We avoid the tyranny of the majority [0] or supermajority. > * It avoids politics. If we start averaging, or counting votes for/against > in an offsetting way, there will be politics. Counting votes for/against > will create inequality because influential project members will likely see > their ideas adopted but others won't. Having a "default to change and any > core dev can veto" approach creates equality. > > Regarding how "obvious consensus" works with the "veto-or-it-passes" > model, if there are zero -1 votes cast, that means no one wanted to stop > the process. If no wants to stop it, and at least one is for it, then the > most sensible thing to do is to pass it. Since someone took time to write > the PUP there is obviously someone giving it a +1. If one person really > wants to go to place X for dinner (aka a +1), and there are no > counterproposals (aka a -1 with a suggestion) or strong preferences against > (aka -0 or +0) then the group will probably go to place X for dinner by way > of "obvious consensus". > > In summary, adopting a "default to accept or reject with even a single > veto" system creates an equal system. A system where, a single individual > can make a difference, and anyone can stop a bad idea from occurring. To > @mhrivnak's point about a change not meeting a broad range of needs, I > expect -1's to be cast in those cases, so this system is still very safe in > terms of protecting the projects needs and interests. > > [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority > > -Brian > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:53 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Not sure this is true. I actually abstained from voting on PUP-3 because >> I was somewhere between a +0 and a -0. >> >> >> David >> >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> 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> >>> 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 >>>> 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