I've pushed a new commit [3] to the PR. It includes the following changes. Please review and comment. If there are any major/blocking concerns about adopting this please raise them. Once the PUP1 revisions are resolved, PUP2 can also be accepted based on the votes it had previously.
* Adjusts the +1 approvals to come from anywhere, not just core devs * Explicitly allows for votes to be recast * Explains two examples where votes are recast. One is based on many other -1 votes being cast. The other is when concerns are addressed and a -1 vote is recast. [3]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/5/commits/959c67f5a4d16a26e1d97ea6fe4aa570066db768 -Brian On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > From the discussion on the call last week, I've made some revisions [2] to > explore the idea of having a lazy consensus model. Comments, ideas, > concerns are welcome either on the PR or via this thread. > > As @mhrivnak pointed out, the adoption of a lazy consensus model is > meaningfully different than the language we have in pup1 today which uses > "obvious consensus". I want to be up front about that change [2]. If anyone > significantly disagrees with this direction, or has concerns, please raise > them. > > [2]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/5/ > > -Brian > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> After some in-person discussion, we will have a call to discuss ideas and >> options regarding the pup1 process. We will use this etherpad [0] for >> notes, and we will recap the information to the list also. In preparation, >> please continue to share ideas, perspectives and concerns via this list. >> >> When: June 22nd, 1pm UTC. See this in your local timezone here [1]. The >> call will last no longer than 1 hour. >> >> How to connect: >> video chat: https://bluejeans.com/697488960 >> phone only: + 800 451 8679 Enter Meeting ID: 697488960 >> >> [0]: http://pad-katello.rhcloud.com/p/Pulp_PUP_Process_Revisited >> [1]: http://bit.ly/2rJqegX >> >> -Brian >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhriv...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Back to where we started, having digested the discussion here and >>> references cited, it seems clear that we have a system based on consensus, >>> and that there is strong desire for decisions about process to continue >>> being made with consensus. In terms of "obvious consensus", I'll propose >>> that if any core member thinks it has not been reached, it has (perhaps by >>> definition) not been reached. >>> >>> PUP0001 simply states in that case, "If obvious consensus is not >>> reached, then the core devs decide." We don't need to over-complicate this. >>> We've had reasonable success for many years at making process changes and >>> agreeing on them. The PUP system should be a tool that helps us define a >>> proposal as best we can, while providing a focal point for discussion. It >>> should not unduly impede our ability to make decisions. >>> >>> So in a case where consensus is not obvious, can we talk it out among >>> the core devs, particularly those with reservations, and make it our >>> collective responsibility to find a path forward? Do we need to define it >>> in more detail than that? >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:22 AM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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/#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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Michael Hrivnak >>> >>> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE >>> >>> Red Hat >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev