On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 14:41, Richard Hartmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 3:17 PM Brian Brazil > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm not really convinced here, for example in the cases that come to > mind the concern tends to be ignored rather than addressed. Also in the > example wording "considered" is quite vague, what counts as considered > enough > > There's always some human element of interpretation and people with > differing positions will naturally evaluate arguments and assessments > differently; else, they would not disagree in the first place. > > > > who does the considering? > > In IETF: Chairs > > Are you suggesting we should have a Prometheus [Working Group] Chair > to reduce interpretative space? > My point is more that it sounds like a fundamental disagreement would change from a lack of lazy concensus to a lack of concensus on things being considered enough - which is no real change. After all if someone was already happy that their objection was sufficiently addressed, why would they block any further? I don't see how having an additional level of process on top of the existing maintainers by creating what could end up as a kingmaker would help, governance already has mechanisms to deal with disagreement where consensus isn't working out. -- Brian Brazil www.robustperception.io -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prometheus Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/CAHJKeLqYwBEj0Owm37B4j%2BWvSzhxpVo4v4Nq-WHKsqzm_Gw76Q%40mail.gmail.com.
