I just wanted to make sure nobody sees my email as a set of rules. They are just notifications and a heads up for how Open Source communities work based on my experience.
This discussion is also a good place to argue in advance. Since when the list becomes a reality it can cause contributor rage quits, forks and so on. The fact is, PR driven development will lead to backstabbing and conflicts. These will happen and are part of the politics, but this will help to prevent it: We require a more broad view of the project and start building some basic > consensus Toni On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 10:48 AM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < elguard...@gmail.com> wrote: > Toshiya > > Code modification a -1 is a veto. > Regarding getting things done is about a deeper problem than setting more > rules or procedures. This is rooted in the lack of project path and silos > in some areas. That is the reason we all find resistance in certain areas. > We require a more broad view of the project and start building some basic > consensus. > > El vie, 24 ene 2025, 9:36, Toshiya Kobayashi <toshiyakobaya...@gmail.com> > escribió: > > > Thank you for raising this post, Toni. > > > > I had a short talk with Toni, and add one more point regarding > > "Discussion". > > > > For a large work, we typically raise a discussion thread and take a vote. > > > > We may have been spending too much time on the discussion phase. > Sometimes > > we cannot settle conflicts of opinion. Sometimes we don't get enough > > feedback. But we can have a deadline for the vote, and then go for the > > vote. It will accelerate the actual work eventually. > > > > We don't need to be afraid of "-1" which is not veto (See "procedural > > issues" in https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html) and we can go > > forward. > > > > Regards, > > Toshiya > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 4:10 PM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I thought I should open a discussion about this. I mentioned in last > > week's > > > meeting that we spend a lot of time planning and not that much > executing. > > > The highlight of this is we have a 1.5 hour weekly meeting where > nothing > > > can be decided since decisions are done on this mailing list. > > > > > > In a community like this. If you take away everything, but the bare > > > minimum. There really only exist the things that have a PR and what is > > > merged in. > > > > > > Why is a plan not included in the bare minimum? A plan is a wish. For a > > > wish to become a reality it needs a contributor ( single or a team ) > and > > > work hours to get done ( no getting hit by a bus, people changing jobs, > > > company shifting interests or closing down a contributing team ). Only > > when > > > the plan has a PR, everything green and working, does it exist for the > > > community. ( Merge is just a matter of a mouse click. ) > > > > > > Few types resulting in a PR: > > > > > > 1. You can propose something. Ask for feedback. Make a good plan. > Get > > > everyone to agree. Make a PR. > > > 2. You can propose something... Make a PR and the PR is nothing that > > was > > > agreed upon. > > > 3. You can propose something. Nobody wants it. Make a PR > > > 4. You can just make a PR with no warning. > > > > > > What type is best? Depends. > > > It is possible to have several plans competing. First one having a PR > > > usually wins. > > > > > > I am bringing these bullet points up just to give a heads up. > > > > > > - For a good while everything was led top down at Red Hat. In an > > > environment like that it is easy to make long term plans. In the > > current > > > setup, anything that goes past 3 months is a dream. Any plan is a > wish > > > until PR, any PR is a proposal until it is merged. > > > - PR contains what the contributor decides it contains. It is of > > course > > > beneficial to signal the change early, implement what is agreed on, > > > propose, vote and so on. However if something needs to get done, > there > > > is > > > only one person that is willing to do it. Then it is up to the > > > community to > > > take what is offered or live without. > > > - A contributor is the lead for the work and planning leading to a > PR. > > > - Contributor can be a group of people > > > - PR contains what the contributor decides it contains. > > > - Plan is formed by the contributor > > > - Contributor can take in suggestions > > > - Plan is executed by the contributor > > > - PR is delivered by the contributor > > > - The contributor can not alone decide if the PR is merged. This > is > > > up to the community and therefore we get "separation of powers" > > > - If you disagree on something. > > > - You can offer opinions, these can be ignored. > > > - You can offer help ( better way, still might also be ignored ) > > > - You can make a completely alternative implementation > > > - You can also slow down the process of getting things done by > > > stalling it in many ways. Try not to be that person > > > - Too much planning will drive contributors away > > > - Too much critique will drive contributors away ( maybe it can be > > fixed > > > later ) > > > - The best plan loses to the solution that has been implemented > > > - Getting everyone to agree on something is impossible > > > - Getting everything perfect on the level where even one of us is > > happy > > > is impossible > > > - Each one of us is QA, PM, HR, contributor, a customer and a > > king/queen > > > of their own work. > > > - There is no higher level that can > > > - Settle arguments > > > - Decide when a plan is complete > > > - Decide who does what > > > - Order anyone to do anything > > > - Order anyone not to do something > > > - We need to be comfortable with conflicts > > > - Do not trust work planned by a contributor will be delivered > > > - Do not trust PR contains what was planned > > > - A working community is based on trust. ( There is a balance of > trust > > > and not having it.) Not every PR has to be agreed by everyone > > > - Code wins > > > - Getting things done wins > > > > > > Now these are not rules I am proposing. This is how it works with the > > > current setup. It might feel like a wild west, because it is. It is > > however > > > how Open Source projects work when they are actually open. This is more > > or > > > less how the early days of KIE were ( different branding back then ), > > > before everyone in the community was working for the same company. > > > > > > I am bringing this up since I see a few items stuck on planning and we > > > needed them ages ago. We have contributors that can act, but getting > the > > > plan perfect is in the way. The contributors can just say this is > enough, > > > implement and this will drive the change forward. For those opposing > > this. > > > The options you have are listed above. > > > > > > Toni Rikkola > > > Community member sponsored by Red Hat during days > > > Community member sponsored by Kalsarikännit during nights > > > > > >
