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

[Brian Bouterse]

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170613/593d5033/attachment.htm>