I like centos model but personally I’m not a fan of the lazy consensus option (X=0). Instead, I like the idea of having X be greater than 1 (preferably 2). I feel like if there’s at least two people driving a change (i.e. X=2) then if one person leaves the project, we’ll still have someone who is able and motivated to take on the maintenance and evolution of the change. That said, I am happy to test out the model where X=0.
David 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/# > consensus-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