Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

The voting ended on August 11th with a final vote count of eight +1s and no -1 votes. I've gone ahead and merged the revisions. Thank you for everyone's comments, participation, and patience throughout this process. Now that the revisions are merged, you can see the whole document here: https://gi

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

+1 On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Ina Panova wrote: > +1. > Thanks Brian for all your effort and commitment. > > > > > 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." > > O

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

+1. Thanks Brian for all your effort and commitment. 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, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Daniel Alley wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Aug 10, 20

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

+1 On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Davis > wrote: > >> +1. I think this is worth trying out. >> >> >> David >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Thank you Brian! >>> >>> On Thu,

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

+1 On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Davis wrote: > +1. I think this is worth trying out. > > > David > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Thank you Brian! >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Brian Bouterse >> wrote: >> >>> A small language clari

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

+1 Thanks, Brian! Tanya On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Davis wrote: > +1. I think this is worth trying out. > > > David > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Thank you Brian! >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Brian Bouterse >> wrote: >> >>>

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

+1. I think this is worth trying out. David On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: > +1 > > Thank you Brian! > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> A small language clarification was pushed based on feedback via comment: >> https://github.com/bmbou

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

+1 Thank you Brian! On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > A small language clarification was pushed based on feedback via comment: > https://github.com/bmbouter/pups/commit/f5b7282b2d2e369b90f149e4cc2522 > 6bb093171b > > Voting is open for the PUP1 revisions. Normally the vot

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

A small language clarification was pushed based on feedback via comment: https://github.com/bmbouter/pups/commit/f5b7282b2d2e369b90f149e4cc25226bb093171b Voting is open for the PUP1 revisions. Normally the voting window is longer, but this topic has been discussed for a long time. The core team ea

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

After some in-person convo, the core team wants to open PUP1 revision voting on Wednesday and close it at midnight UTC on Friday Aug 11th. We will pass/not-pass according this the voting outlined in PUP1 itself (a variation on self-hosting [0]). We also want to ask that any comments on the PUP1 rev

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

>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

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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:

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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 c

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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 a

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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,

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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 '

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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.

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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 lea

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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 o

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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 emp

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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 wrote: > Having at least one +1 is not impartial approach just because the > developer who , as you said, found the time for the r

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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 wrote: > I liked what Brian said, p

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

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 bl

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

--> - We could score each vote (e.g. -2 for -1, -1 for -0, +1 for +0, +2 for +1) and then add up the votes. An obvious consensus could be something like a total of 0 or greater. >From my perspective it complicates the 'consensus' Why not following: if there is -1 from core dev, then not implement

[Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

I wanted to follow up after our meeting about what “obvious consensus" means in PUP-1. As a refresher, here’s the relevant section in PUP-1: https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md#deciding The term about “obvious consens