Another model to consider is to look how downstream kernel guys accept patches - it should have at least 3 acks and none nack.
-------- 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 Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Daniel, a person has *always* its own opinion, +/-1 just makes him more to > think, or think twice or encourage the person to go and read and google if > there is not much or knowledge or tech background. > Another example, i personally voted as -0, just because i don't want to > stay in the way, so i am 'going with the flow'. If there would be just +/- > 1, i would vote as -1, this will make me think more and provide stronger > arguments, instead of putting a relaxed +/- 0 just because it is a safer > option and you don't need to mess the water and be in the middle of the > fire :) Zero is always and easy path :) > > > > -------- > 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 Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I _strongly_ disagree with the idea of a black or white +1 / -1 system, I >> think it would be much more likely to encourage groupthink. Not everyone >> will be able to reach a clear, strong opinion about every topic, >> particularly people less familiar or experienced with the subject area >> under debate. Those people are put in the position of either abstaining, >> or "going with the flow", and the very act of deciding "yes, I am going to >> vote for this" can suppress your reservations about something. >> >> The consensus decision making document Brian linked seems like a good >> model, although it seems to make a distinction between a reservation, a >> comment, and a "vote against" which is poorly explained. I'll also note >> that under that model, +0/-0 are effectively "abstain with comment". And >> maybe that's fine, but to go back to my point earlier (which Michael did an >> excellent job of expanding on), we should consider that a widespread >> opinion of "(-0) I'm not voting no but I'm still concerned about XYZ" is >> problematic. >> >> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I asked about some of these governance questions to a group of community >>> managers from several open source projects that I meet with weekly. They >>> said that if you don't have a BDFL (Pulp does not) the other very popular >>> model is the lazy consensus model. I think lazy consensus is the spirit of >>> pup1. I asked for some examples and they pointed me at the CentOS >>> governance model [0][1]. >>> >>> Also @daviddavis and I were talking and codifying the problem as what >>> value should X be if X are the number of +1s required to pass a decision >>> with zero -1 votes (vetos)? The CentOS governance model sets X = 0 by >>> stating "There is no minimum +1 vote requirement". I'm also advocating for >>> X=0 for the reasons I wrote in my earlier email. Practically speaking, I >>> don't think an X=1, or X=2 will prevent many proposals that would have also >>> passed with X=0. >>> >>> Regardless of the X value, we should continue the discussion so we can >>> arrive at a decision on both pup1 and pup3. Thanks for continuing the convo. >>> >>> [0]: https://www.centos.org/about/governance/appendix-glossary/#c >>> onsensus-decision-making >>> [1]: https://www.centos.org/about/governance/voting/ >>> >>> -Brian >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> And if we would remove all 'shades of grey' and go back just to +1 and >>>> -1 where people would need to make their mind up *clearly* which would lead >>>> stronger arguments of doing or not doing this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- >>>> 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 Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
