Tiago, it also amazes me how unnecessary aggressive, and out of the point, your own reply is.
I simply stated something pretty obvious, i.e why some kind of discussion may arise: the very same thing could be viewed as something to be done now for someone, and a technical debt for someone else. Since there is no proposal discussed in this thread, there is not even the chance that I'm referring to anything here as "technical debt". And, it is exactly about giving room to everyone to share their own ideas. Il giorno ven 24 gen 2025 alle ore 16:46 Tiago Bento <tiagobe...@apache.org> ha scritto: > Francisco and Gabriele, it really does amaze me how anything contrary > to your views is "likely unnecessary", "almost universally questioned" > and/or "tech debt". Come on, guys. Give some room for other people to > have their ideas and move things forward in their own way. You don't > need to have an opinion about everything. > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 12:00 PM Gabriele Cardosi > <gabriele.card...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > >
