[Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"
daviddavis at redhat.com
Mon Jun 12 23:53:48 UTC 2017
Not sure this is true. I actually abstained from voting on PUP-3 because I
was somewhere between a +0 and a -0.
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 :)
> 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>
>> 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
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev