GOVERNANCE: Proposing a motion is a LGTM by default

[wking]

To avoid uncertainty like this.

This is more than a typo-fix, so it probably deserves an
all-maintainers vote to confirm the change. I'm going to remove the
co-sponsor requirement in a separate PR, and we can batch those two
together for a single vote if that would make life easier for
maintainers.

[vbatts]

LGTM

[vbatts]

actually no, that is like LGTM'ing your own PR, which we disallow.
Rejected

[wking]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:33:06AM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

actually no, that is like LGTM'ing your own PR, which we disallow.
Rejected

We have a much more relaxed quorum requirement for PRs (2 LGTMs, vs. ⅔
for voted proposals). And the motivation for blocking self-LGTMs is
1:

to ensure equal amounts of review for every pull request, no matter
who wrote it

Non-maintainers may submit pull requests (and need two other folks to
LGTM it), so that's consistent. But non-maintainers cannot propose
motions, so every proposal is reviewed equally even if you allow
sponsor votes.

If, I cannot convince folks that sponsor(s) should be allowed to vote,
my next proposal would be to remove them from the quorum count. With
wording like:

A quorum is established when at least two-thirds of non-sponsor
maintainers have voted.

but ick ;).

If we block sponsor votes but keep them in the quorum, I think we'll
be raising our quorum requirement too high. It's a shame when a vote
fails because folks didn't notice it 2.

[tianon]

As I mentioned on the list, I'd rather the proposer's acceptance be implied unless they state otherwise. If they don't agree with the proposal, it seems silly IMO for them to be proposing it.

(Not sure if my vote counts here, but just in case:)
Rejected

[wking]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:17:09PM -0700, Tianon Gravi wrote:

As I mentioned on the list, I'd rather the proposer's acceptance be
implied unless they state otherwise. If they don't agree with the
proposal, it seems silly IMO for them to be proposing it.

You don't buy my “reject a proposal they consider crazy” workflow 1?
;). I think it's easy to stick a LGTM in your propsal, so I like
ca46aab as it stands. But if that seems like too high a bar, I'm ok
with language like:

Unless the sponsor(s) explicitly LGTM/REJECT the proposal, the
submitting the proposal counts as a LGTM.

Both that wording and ca46aab allow sponsor(s) to vote, which
@vbatts is concerned about 2 but I think is appropriate 3. Do you
have any problems with sponsor(s) voting in general?

(Not sure if my vote counts here, but just in case:)
Rejected

I'm not sure how pull-approve is setup for this site, but my
understanding is that the maintainers are the union of all OCI project
maintainers (in which case your vote counts).

 Subject: Re: [runtime-spec VOTE]: Tag d3c3763b as v1.0.0-rc2 (closes
  2016-09-08 13:47 UTC)
 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 11:08:16 -0700
 Message-ID: <20160908180816.GZ14866@odin.tremily.us>

[tianon]

Yeah, I don't have any problem with the proposer voting -- I think your reasoning makes sense regarding that, I just think that the situations in which someone would propose something they actually disagree with are small enough that it's worth optimizing our already high-overhead process for the default common case (which is that the proposer agrees with what they're proposing).

[wking]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:33:31PM -0700, Tianon Gravi wrote:

… I just think that the situations in which someone would propose
something they actually disagree with are small enough that it's
worth optimizing our already high-overhead process for the default
common case (which is that the proposer agrees with what they're
proposing).

Maybe I've just absorbed too much “Explicit is better than implicit”
1 ;). Anyhow, updated to make proposing a motion an explicit LGTM
with ca46aab → 30f6050.

[tianon]

Heh, I generally agree, but in this case, I'm more partial to "Simple is better than complex."

30f6050 LGTM 👍

[vbatts]

Might as well say "unless sponsor explicitly REJECT" rather than or LGTM,
but it doesn't break any logic being this way.

30f6050 LGTM

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, 15:51 Tianon Gravi notifications@github.com wrote:

Heh, I generally agree, but in this case, I'm more partial to "Simple is
better than complex."

30f6050
30f6050
LGTM 👍

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#18 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEF6YWVFeYt92E_6UKLIPnM81Yad32qks5qoGdYgaJpZM4J4Sms
.

[wking]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:59:48PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

Might as well say "unless sponsor explicitly REJECT" rather than or LGTM,
but it doesn't break any logic being this way.

Good point. Replaced “LGTM or REJECT” with “REJECT or ABSTAIN” in
30f6050 → ee50249.

[tianon]

ee50249 LGTM

[vbatts]

ee50249 LGTM

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016, 16:10 Tianon Gravi notifications@github.com wrote:

ee50249
ee50249
LGTM

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#18 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEF6Rrb8_DyFvWtM5FqgxC_3AwkRvT6ks5qoGuhgaJpZM4J4Sms
.

[hqhq]

LGTM