<div dir="ltr"><div>I agree with Austin that whether we choose a tie-breaking individual or simply a voting system, we need an official process to prevent punting decisions forever down the road. Discussion and community involvement are great and still happening. Dissenters are not getting ignored and overruled. Making a decision does not mean we can't pivot and code up a different solution down the road if the user feedback says that needs to happen. But we *do* need to make decisions and move sooner rather than later ("Release early, release often"), not only so that QE and others downstream have time to plan and act on that knowledge and provide feedback but also simply to devote more time to work and less to repetitive meetings that don't end in a decision. This does not mean we will rush decisions, and we should still have other discussions on standards of process and quality and whatnot, but time boxing is necessary.<br><br></div>--Dana<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>
<p style="font-weight:bold;margin:0;padding:0;font-size:14px;text-transform:uppercase;margin-bottom:0"><span>Dana</span> <span>Walker</span></p>
<p style="font-weight:normal;font-size:10px;margin:0px 0px 4px;text-transform:uppercase"><span>Associate Software Engineer</span><span style="font-weight:normal;color:#aaa;margin:0"></span></p>
<p style="font-weight:normal;margin:0;font-size:10px;color:#999"><a style="color:#0088ce;font-size:10px;margin:0;text-decoration:none;font-family:'overpass',sans-serif" href="https://www.redhat.com" target="_blank">Red Hat <span><br><br></span></a></p>
<table border="0"><tbody><tr><td width="100px"><a href="https://red.ht/sig" target="_blank"> <img src="https://www.redhat.com/files/brand/email/sig-redhat.png" width="90" height="auto"></a> </td>
</tr></tbody></table>
</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Austin Macdonald <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:austin@redhat.com" target="_blank">austin@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Brian Bouterse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bbouters@redhat.com" target="_blank">bbouters@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>The lazy model is lazy, but I don't think it's ineffective. If there are issues with the lazy consensus model, let's talk about what those are.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I dub this problem the "lazy veto". If there is a choice is between "do something" and "don't do something" anyone who is -1 does not have an incentive to engage in discussion. "Default to punt" is the opposite of our intention, which we agreed was "default to change".</div><span class=""><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div> Adding a new, second process to-the-side I think will only muddy the water.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>The idea is that a good tech lead would only act when there is a stalled decision. How could that muddy the water?</div><span class=""><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div></div>I believe in the benefit of asynchronous decision making for open source projects. Moving to a single-person role moves us to a centralized decision making model. There is some related content in this video [0] from fosdem: "Asynchronous Decision Making -- why and how. How Asynchronous Decision Making works and why it's essential"<br><br>[0]: <a href="https://fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/community_decision_making_why_how/" target="_blank">https://fosdem.org/2018/schedu<wbr>le/event/community_decision_ma<wbr>king_why_how/</a></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I watched the video, and it was interesting. Whether we move forward with a tech lead, or a voting system, or whatever, we must have an official process. </div><div><div class="h5"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"> </div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331HOEnZb"><div class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Daniel Alley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dalley@redhat.com" target="_blank">dalley@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><div>My opinion is that we have stalled and punted several very
important issues when lazy consensus was too lazy. This has slowed our
progress enough that I am interested in fleshing out alternatives.</div><div><div class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161m_4022756252605810827gmail-adm"><div id="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161m_4022756252605810827gmail-q_16291581b0453ae8_7" class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161m_4022756252605810827gmail-ajR m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161m_4022756252605810827gmail-h4"><div class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161m_4022756252605810827gmail-ajT"></div></div></div></div></blockquote></span><div><br>+1 <br></div></div><div class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161HOEnZb"><div class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Austin Macdonald <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:austin@redhat.com" target="_blank">austin@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Brian Bouterse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bbouters@redhat.com" target="_blank">bbouters@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I'm not ready to pursue a single decision maker model for Pulp's technical decisions or community leadership. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>OpenStack tech leads aren't "single decision makers", they are a fallback for when consensus isn't reached. In theory the role <i>could </i>scope creep to "single decision makers" depending on the style of the individual, but elections prevent that if the voters are responsible.</div><span><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I also have concerns about those positions being rotating roles since typically they require much experience. This would also be a departure from the lazy consensus decision making model we use for community decisions (the pup process itself).</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">A "rotating role" is different than an elected position. I'm not sure what Milan meant by "time boxed", but I imagine this would just be another election, not a term limit. I think if this is done well, it would augment the lazy consensus model, not replace it.</div></div><span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br>There would need to be a lot of discussion with input from many people around what the issues currently are so we can be sure that changes would resolve those issues.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>+1 We should set this up carefully. I think a PUP is the right way to do that.</div><div><br></div><div>My opinion is that we have stalled and punted several very important issues when lazy consensus was too lazy. This has slowed our progress enough that I am interested in fleshing out alternatives.</div><div><div class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161m_4022756252605810827h5"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><div class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161m_4022756252605810827m_7006260551619598968h5"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:54 AM, Milan Kovacik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mkovacik@redhat.com" target="_blank">mkovacik@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Oh I'd forget that we actually don't really have a formal process to<br>
recognize and retire active contributors yet;<br>
how about the technical lead proposes both the recognition and<br>
retirement anytime they find reason to do so, for the former<br>
situation, with a pre-approval of other active contributors, propose<br>
folks publicly, for the latter situation, try reaching out to the<br>
retiring contributor before going public to avoid frustration.<br>
Folks of course would ideally announce their intention to retire, the<br>
formal process would be conducted by the technical lead.<br>
The insignia of an active contributor would be the commit bit on any<br>
of the Pulp projects.<br>
The first ever technical and community leads would be elected by folks<br>
with the commit bit, the election would be organized by our current<br>
community representatives.<br>
<br>
Unless there are objections, I'd file a PUP to summarize these points.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
milan<br>
<div class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161m_4022756252605810827m_7006260551619598968m_8713653741509894036m_5081277825330021241HOEnZb"><div class="m_7364037761389496653m_7603732020734478864m_6615035819354778065m_-6077159134760555806m_-6577093484126385386m_5743216548030870290m_-4039997697346180758m_-8254522018474405704m_615911725464856829m_5766204318702051331m_8371681988791624161m_4022756252605810827m_7006260551619598968m_8713653741509894036m_5081277825330021241h5"><br>
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Milan Kovacik <<a href="mailto:mkovacik@redhat.com" target="_blank">mkovacik@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Austin Macdonald <<a href="mailto:austin@redhat.com" target="_blank">austin@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Interesting proposals Milan!<br>
>><br>
>> I am forking Brian's email so that thread can focus on communication,<br>
>> redmine, etc.<br>
><br>
> Thanks, I guess it would best go hand-in-hand with the process update<br>
> proposal for the Technical specifications/blue-prints PUP:<br>
><br>
>>> I'd add that many a time, an e-mail based technical discussion gets<br>
>>> messy and unfolds in multiple branches over multiple months.<br>
>>> I'd like to propose we adopt a Technical Specification concept, living<br>
>>> in a separate GitHub repo, similar to the PUP process.<br>
>>> This would take advantage of our review process, preferably requiring<br>
>>> multiple (core) reviewers acks before merging, allowing Redmine to be<br>
>>> used for planning/tracking the (design) work.<br>
>>> I think it's easier to manage the life-cycle of a larger Technical<br>
>>> Specification in a revision system document than an e-mail thread and<br>
>>> a single Redmine issue.<br>
>>> It also helps (feature) documentation and provides context.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Milan Kovacik <<a href="mailto:mkovacik@redhat.com" target="_blank">mkovacik@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> I'd also like to propose formal Project Technical Lead and a formal<br>
>>> Project Community Lead roles to be able to decide in case of competing<br>
>>> (technical) ideas or planning priorities.<br>
>>> These would have to be time-boxed (half a year) and folks would elect<br>
>>> the leader for a period based on leader's program, such as focus on<br>
>>> particular goals for instance testing or refactoring.<br>
>>> Any single person would be able to perform either the Community or the<br>
>>> Technical Lead role in any given period but not both at the same time.<br>
>>> The Community Lead role would take care for organizing the Technical<br>
>>> Lead elections and vice versa, the Technical Lead would take care<br>
>>> about organizing the Community Lead elections.<br>
>>> The electorate would be the active contributors for both the roles.<br>
>>> The candidates would be the active contributors too.<br>
>>><br>
>>> This would open up the decision making process for anyone from the<br>
>>> community, would encourage transparency, accountability and<br>
>>> responsibility and would allow us to come to a decision on competing<br>
>>> (technical) ideas or planning issues in case we'd got stuck.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Cheers,<br>
>>> milan<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Brian Bouterse <<a href="mailto:bbouters@redhat.com" target="_blank">bbouters@redhat.com</a>><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>>> > I agree the decision process for core itself needs discussion. For now,<br>
>>> > I'm<br>
>>> > only able to offer facilitating a convo that focuses on the<br>
>>> > communication<br>
>>> > aspects not the decision process. I would like to improve the<br>
>>> > transparency<br>
>>> > into the features that will and won't be in any given release for our<br>
>>> > stakeholders. I hope we do discuss decision process as its own<br>
>>> > discussion;<br>
>>> > it's certainly deserving of a pup of its own.<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > For the communication issues, soon I will share a basic outline of one<br>
>>> > way<br>
>>> > we could use Redmine for release planning. This would be a starter idea<br>
>>> > towards a solution for us to modify together.<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Austin Macdonald <<a href="mailto:austin@redhat.com" target="_blank">austin@redhat.com</a>><br>
>>> > wrote:<br>
>>> >><br>
>>> >> I agree with the problems that Brian listed, but I hope we can focus on<br>
>>> >> the decision making process itself in addition to how those decisions<br>
>>> >> are<br>
>>> >> communicated.<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list<br>
>>> > <a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com" target="_blank">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br>
>>> > <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br>
>>> ><br>
>><br>
>><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Pulp-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com" target="_blank">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br>
<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Pulp-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br>
<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>