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

Fri Jun 16 13:22:58 UTC 2017

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/#
> consensus-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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170616/be057a4e/attachment.htm>