[Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"
ipanova at redhat.com
Mon Jun 12 14:47:00 UTC 2017
--> - 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 it and
if majority of the votes are +/-0 then maybe revisit the PUP and talk again
since the team is like 'meh, not really motivated'.
For obvious consensus i think most of the votes should be +1, because it
shows that team members are motivated and inspired by the forthcoming
changes, otherwise i don't see sense in pushing forward is there is no
boost from the very beginning.
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 4:13 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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 consensus” is vague—perhaps intentionally so. I’m wondering
> if we want to clarify what it means. Given that we have numerical votes, we
> could implement an algorithm for deciding what an obvious consensus means.
> A couple examples:
> - At least X% of votes are +0 or +1
> - 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.
> The other conditions (e.g. no -1 votes from pulp core devs) should still
> apply I think. So even if there is an obvious consensus, the PUP wouldn’t
> necessarily be approved.
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev