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

Mon Jul 31 13:24:04 UTC 2017

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 <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/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 <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
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170731/d5e4da8a/attachment.htm>