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

[Ina Panova]

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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170613/74182cdd/attachment.htm>