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

Fri Aug 11 08:54:47 UTC 2017

+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 <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1. I think this is worth trying out.
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Brian!
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A small language clarification was pushed based on feedback via
>>>>> comment:  https://github.com/bmbouter/pups/commit/f5b7282b2d2e369b90f1
>>>>> 49e4cc25226bb093171b
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> earlier this week decided a shorter voting window was appropriate in this
>>>>> case. Voting will close at midnight UTC on Friday Aug 11th. Please raise
>>>>> any concerns around this process. Otherwise, please send in votes via this
>>>>> thread. I'll cast mine now.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to passing the pup1 revisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to everyone who has contributed comments and energy into this
>>>>> topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 revisions by posted before midnight UTC tomorrow Aug 8th.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/959c67f5a4d16a26
>>>>>>> e1d97ea6fe4aa570066db768
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at 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 <
>>>>>>>> bbouters at 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 <
>>>>>>>>> mhrivnak at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>> daviddavis at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> bbouters at 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/g
>>>>>>>>>>>> overnance/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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>> ipanova at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> daviddavis at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bbouters at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daviddavis at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipanova at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amacdona at 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 at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Hrivnak
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170811/48102dac/attachment.htm>