Hi all, I think Enrique clearly defined the problems and issues related to different kind of votes: [1]
1. Procedural Issues 2. Code modifications 3. Package releases The very same document states The community should spell out in its guidelines the tacit implications of > voting. However, *in no case* may someone's vote be considered invalid if > it does not appear to meet the implied commitment: a vote is a formal > expression of opinion, *not* of commitment. > It is implied by their very nature that Proposal would raise a lot of discussions, IMO. Those discussions could also stray away from the original message, because the original proposer overlooked some indirect consequence. When that happens, there is the clash of two different approaches, the "done is better than perfect", on one side, and the "let's avoid increasing tech debt just to have a PR merged in" (please, bear with me - just for the sake of discussion). It is more than anything a mindset confrontation, and a fair discussion should lead to the "best possible" (of course, not perfect) solution that considers both POV. [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Il giorno ven 24 gen 2025 alle ore 14:50 Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> ha scritto: > Thank you for starting this critical discussion, Toni! > > You've raised some crucial points, and we're overlooking a fundamental > principle: while discussions are valuable, opinions are only truly > constructive when paired with a commitment to action. > > Proposals play an essential role in balancing collaboration and > productivity. Sharing proposals before implementing changes helps > mitigate frustration, particularly when efforts like a PR are later > rejected. Proposals are intended to streamline discussions and guide > us toward actionable solutions. > > That said, we've sometimes lost focus during proposal reviews. > Discussions often stray into abstract or tangential topics, becoming > debates lacking actionable outcomes. This undermines the purpose of > proposals and stalls progress. > > The "done is better than perfect" principle should guide us. Those who > take action—the doers—should not be held back by unstructured > opinions. Instead, opinions should come with a commitment to address > the specific problem within the proposal's scope. Without that > commitment, such opinions should not carry weight in the > decision-making. > > To improve our workflows and ensure productive discussions, I suggest > that proposals follow a basic structure: > > - Problem Statement: Clearly define the issue being addressed. > - Action Plan: Outline the steps to address the issue. > - Commitment: Specify who will take ownership of the action plan and a > rough timeline for execution. > > Engagement on proposals should focus on clarifying questions and > constructive feedback. If disagreements arise, they should be > accompanied by an alternative actionable plan with similar detail and > commitment, including a timeline. Discussions that do not meet these > criteria risk becoming noise and should be deprioritized. > > By adhering to this approach, we can foster a culture of > accountability and ensure that our discussions lead to meaningful > progress. > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 7:44 AM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > The reason why I am separating ML and PR is that if there is no PR there > is > > no work done. Of course you might have a topic branch. Any talk on ML > > without PR is just talk. Since there is no guarantee on delivery due to > the > > "hit by a bus" factor. Any work left over after a contributor is lost can > > go stale fast unless someone else picks it up. Also ML list definition > can > > differ from PR. > > > > I admit this is a very cold take on everything. That is why I was saying > it > > is the bare minimum. > > > > Toshiya's work reported on the mailing list is a great example of how to > do > > things. > > Propose -> Vote/PR -> Merge > > > > Then again the commits mailing list is busy. All the work there, but not > on > > this list, is going in due to trust among the community. > > > > Then we have the examples and documentation issues. Everybody has an > > opinion. That is normal and discussion is needed. But... > > How to get things done? > > Who is the contributor doing the work? We can not order anyone to do it. > > Someone has to volunteer and then that contributor can make a proposal > > based on the time that is available for it, with the skills they have. > The > > contributor has to lead the change and know the limits that they can set > > and then everyone else has to be aware of the list of items I brought up. > > > > Toni > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:52 AM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > elguard...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Yeap. You are right. The problem with this sort of vague guideline is > that > > > what it means is a proper analysis of harm. That is an arbitrary > > > definition. > > > Just an example about ruleflow thing in drools i might consider that > > > removing it is a bad option but my understanding of drools is limited > so my > > > opinion might not have the same weight as an expert realm. Here the > > > structure is flat and everybody can jump into it. So at some point > somebody > > > might feel an arbitrary call by somebody else. Which is difficult to > > > handle. > > > > > > El vie, 24 ene 2025, 10:35, Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> > escribió: > > > > > > > On -1 being veto. Based on the veto definition, the -1 voter would > have > > > to > > > > prove that the proposal does more harm than not having it. > > > > > > > > To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must > provide > > > with > > > > > the veto a technical justification showing why the change is bad > > > (opens a > > > > > security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto > > > > without a > > > > > justification is invalid and has no weight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toni > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:24 AM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > >
