On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 7:08 PM Julius Volz <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would also want to understand a bit more specifically how this would work > in practice though. E.g. when there are three people arguing one way on an > issue, and one person against, and all views have been considered and > arguments are turning in circles, can the majority (with respect to that > discussion) just go ahead and decide / merge things? I guess in the worst > case, when someone feels unheard, they can still call for a team-wide vote, > but the cost of calling for that vote would then be carried by the minority, > not the majority? So things would be more biased towards action. That's one possible mode of operation, yes. Hopefully, there would be fewer lockups by shifting from default-deny to default-majority-ish. If it does not work out to our shared satisfaction, we can always refine the governance further, e.g. introduce a Chair system though, again, I would like to avoid that. Best, Richard -- 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/CAD77%2BgQRh-XY%3Dn3b3Py3P9w_AAfKc4yzRpyssfAsBHHjdX7LEQ%40mail.gmail.com.
