I’d suggest amending that slightly to “requires three lead-dev +1s, and no lead-dev -1s”. We should encourage others to participate, even if their votes are “non-binding”.
And yes, even at Day management still had the last say. ;) Cheers, Jeff. > On 21 Apr 2019, at 22:12, Wayne Stambaugh <[email protected]> wrote: > > As long as the only members of the lead development team have voting > rights and the project leader has veto power than I am fine with this. > I haven't had to use veto power yet but I am not naive enough to believe > that there are no circumstances which I wouldn't veto a majority vote. > > Cheers, > > Wayne > > On 4/21/19 4:03 PM, John Beard wrote: >> +1 >> >> Reminds me of the scoring we used to do code review on Gerrit, with a >> different threshold. That worked well. >> >> Is there a minimum time to wait for a -1? If a reviewer didn't see the >> mail before three +1s, their veto is too late. But if they were checking >> their mail earlier, the veto would count. Since KiCad is a >> trans-continental team and core people can be busy in real life, slow >> mail replies can happen. >> >> And also the etiquette for a "delay until I can review properly" veto. >> If we want people to be free to exercise that ability in good faith >> without feeling shy about blocking while they check it out, it should be >> called out as allowed and encouraged. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> On 21 April 2019 20:34:23 BST, Tomasz Wlostowski >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 21/04/2019 18:08, Jeff Young wrote: >> >> In my last few years at Adobe I worked with Day Software in >> Switzerland which we had just acquired. They did a lot of >> open-source stuff with Apache and had this neat decision-making >> scheme (which may have originated at Apache — I’m unaware of its >> source): >> >> If you need direction on something, you send an email to the >> list. (This part is no different than what we do today.) >> >> If someone agrees, they reply with “+1”. >> >> If someone wants to halt progress until either some discussion >> is had or until another direction is chosen they veto with a “-1”. >> >> When you accumulate three +1s and are clear of -1s you’re good >> to go. >> >> If you do get one or more -1s you’re blocked until those folks >> change their input to either a “+0” or a “+1”. >> >> If you haven’t yet reached three +1s after a time-out period (I >> think we used a week but it might have been two), but you are >> clear of -1s, you can send a message to the list indicating a >> default-consensus and go ahead and implement it. >> >> Might this be useful for us? >> >> +1. >> >> T. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
