Replaces concensus with lazy concensus #5

bmbouter · 2017-06-26T20:45:04Z

No description provided.

daviddavis · 2017-06-26T21:30:37Z

pup-0001.md

-  votes from community members.
-* Consensus is not always possible. If obvious consensus is not reached, then the core devs [1]
-  decide.
+* A PUP is accepted with two, +1 votes from core devs [1] and no blocking (-1) votes from core devs.


s/two,/two/

Instead of having a hardcoded value of X = 2, shouldn't X be related to the number of core devs in the community? The other option could be to adjust this value as and when the community grows.

It's a reasonable suggestion. I think if we're going to base this on the number of "core devs" rather than the community at-large, we would be fine leaving it at X=2. Any change to the number of "core devs" significant enough to warrant a change in X-value would likely warrant reviewing and possibly re-designing some of these guidelines.

Let me suggest that a core dev need not approve, only reject. If a 0 means "it is acceptable" than I would suggest it be that there be one other person who agrees and no one objects.

Actually, as I read this only core devs need to vote which is odd. I would suggest that there be a criteria which is passing that does not mention core devs (e.g. more +1s than -1s). You can add a core dev veto (a -1) if you want, but I think I should be able to suggest an awesome idea that the whole community wants and still have it pass if all the core devs vote +0. (full disclosure, I hate +0 and think it is an implicit +1)

+1 to @bkearney on not having to require any core devs to +1 a PUP. In that case the only criteria for passage would need to be 'no -1 from a core dev'.

This system of voting is not secret or synchronous and an individual can change their vote. Taken together, votes can be changed because of other votes. This adds a lot of flexibility for us to make strong decisions even when the decision we are making is not well suited to any voting system. If a core dev thinks the PUP ought not to pass because it doesn't have enough support, a core dev can change their vote to a -1.

@asmacdo 's interpretation is interesting and would be valuable to capture in the PUP.

#5 (diff) might be the right place for that.

I just pushed a new revision which allows +1s to come from anywhere not just core devs. It also includes a paragraph similar to @asmacdo 's comment about recasting votes along with examples.

daviddavis · 2017-06-26T21:32:00Z

pup-0001.md

-Note that votes can come from anyone, not just core devs [1]. This is directly modeled after [the
-Django process](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/bugs-and-features/#how-we-make-decisions)
-who modeled their process after the Python and Apache communities.
+* -1: "Not the right choice and should definitely not be adopted."


What's the reasoning behind this change? I kind of like the requirement that a -1 vote must include an explanation and that we specify that anyone can vote.

I see your changes below. Disregard!

Based on what we've discussed in terms of using -1 earlier in the process than final voting, maybe this should be softened to include "I have serious reservations that need to be thought through or addressed." The description here seems only appropriate for a final vote that is a definite "no".

I pushed a new version, which replaces the language with the suggested bit from this thread.

daviddavis · 2017-06-26T21:34:49Z

pup-0001.md

+* Stated concerns with a blocking vote can be used to revise a PUP until the blocking vote is
+  recast.
+* Votes can come from anyone, not just core devs [1] and are used as data points.
+* Core devs [1] are expected to consider and echo serious feedback from the community, especially


I like the idea that we seriously consider feedback from the community but what does echo mean here?

I think that the interpretation is up to the individual core dev :)

I also think of this as something which each person can interpret. I've made no changes in response to this thread.

werwty · 2017-06-29T04:06:04Z

pup-0001.md

 The +1, +0, -0, -1 voting process is used; votes are sent as responses via the
-announcement/discussion mailing list. The voting has the following meanings:
+announcement/discussion thread on the mailing list. The voting has the following meanings:


Could another sentence explicitly stating that a vote can be changed at any time in response to other people's concerns and community votes be added?

I've added clarifying language and a section on recasting. It gives this case as a specific example.

mhrivnak · 2017-07-11T18:33:27Z

It seems like this is ready to have comments rolled up into another revision. If additional discussion is needed on a particular point before making a new revision, please call that out. Otherwise I think we'll need a new revision for discussion to continue.

* Adjusts the +1 approvals to come from anywhere, not just core devs * Explicitly allows for votes to be recast * Explains two examples where votes are recast. One is based on many other -1 votes being cast. The other is when concerns are addressed and a -1 vote is recast.

bmbouter · 2017-07-31T13:33:02Z

I pushed a new revision which should address all changes. Please go comment.

daviddavis · 2017-07-31T16:54:55Z

Reviewed and LGTM. Thanks for updating the proposal.

asmacdo

Excellent revisions, thanks @bmbouter!

asmacdo · 2017-08-01T14:27:33Z

pup-0001.md

+  a vote to a -1 based on observing many -0 votes which indicate a PUP does not have broad support
+  even with enough +1 votes to pass.
+* Votes can come from anyone, not just core devs [1].
+* Core devs [1] are expected to consider and echo serious concerns from the community, especially


IMO: s/serious// but feel free to leave as is.

ipanova · 2017-08-08T09:35:46Z

pup-0001.md

+
+### Accepting/Rejecting
+
+* A PUP is accepted with two +1 votes from anyone and no blocking -1 votes from core devs.


does 'anyone' mean community member?

Yes anyone effectively means 'community member'. It was added based on some comments from the last round.

Is the author an assumed +1, or is it the author +2 positive votes? I assume tha latter.

The author's vote is not assumed. They can abstain or vote. If an author votes +1 (very likely), an additional +1 is required to pass. I'm pushing a 2-line clarifying change in the next commit.

That clarifying language commit is here: f5b7282

bmbouter · 2017-08-17T20:21:57Z

With 8 +1 votes and no -1 votes I'm going to merge this PR. Thanks to everyone who participated.

bmbouter force-pushed the pup1-revisions branch 2 times, most recently from da5e871 to 8937025 Compare June 26, 2017 21:06

Replaces concensus with lazy concensus

e13e2d7

bmbouter force-pushed the pup1-revisions branch from 8937025 to e13e2d7 Compare June 26, 2017 21:09

daviddavis reviewed Jun 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

werwty reviewed Jun 29, 2017

View reviewed changes

asmacdo approved these changes Aug 1, 2017

View reviewed changes

asmacdo reviewed Aug 1, 2017

View reviewed changes

daviddavis approved these changes Aug 1, 2017

View reviewed changes

werwty approved these changes Aug 1, 2017

View reviewed changes

ipanova reviewed Aug 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

Clarifying if author(s) vote

f5b7282

bmbouter merged commit c7f2e74 into pulp:master Aug 17, 2017

bmbouter deleted the pup1-revisions branch August 17, 2017 20:22

Replaces concensus with lazy concensus #5

Replaces concensus with lazy concensus #5

bmbouter commented Jun 26, 2017

daviddavis Jun 26, 2017

ammaritiz Jun 27, 2017 •

edited

dralley Jun 27, 2017

bkearney Jun 27, 2017

bkearney Jun 27, 2017

dkliban Jun 27, 2017

asmacdo Jun 28, 2017

mhrivnak Jul 10, 2017

asmacdo Jul 11, 2017

bmbouter Jul 31, 2017

daviddavis Jun 26, 2017

daviddavis Jun 26, 2017

mhrivnak Jul 10, 2017

bmbouter Jul 31, 2017

daviddavis Jun 26, 2017

dkliban Jun 27, 2017

bmbouter Jul 31, 2017

werwty Jun 29, 2017

bmbouter Jul 31, 2017

mhrivnak commented Jul 11, 2017

bmbouter commented Jul 31, 2017

daviddavis commented Jul 31, 2017 •

edited

asmacdo left a comment

asmacdo Aug 1, 2017

ipanova Aug 8, 2017

bmbouter Aug 9, 2017

bkearney Aug 9, 2017

bmbouter Aug 10, 2017 •

edited

bmbouter Aug 10, 2017

bmbouter commented Aug 17, 2017


		### Accepting/Rejecting

		* A PUP is accepted with two +1 votes from anyone and no blocking -1 votes from core devs.

Replaces concensus with lazy concensus #5

Replaces concensus with lazy concensus #5

Conversation

bmbouter commented Jun 26, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ammaritiz Jun 27, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mhrivnak commented Jul 11, 2017

bmbouter commented Jul 31, 2017

daviddavis commented Jul 31, 2017 • edited

asmacdo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bmbouter Aug 10, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bmbouter commented Aug 17, 2017

ammaritiz Jun 27, 2017 •

edited

daviddavis commented Jul 31, 2017 •

edited

bmbouter Aug 10, 2017 •

edited