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

Fri Aug 11 13:11:59 UTC 2017

+1

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> 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."
>
> 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/pu
>>>>>> ps/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
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170811/19bf05ae/attachment.htm>