On 25 May 19:41, Richard Hartmann wrote: > 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
I would vote :+1: on changing to rough consensus. -- Julien Pivotto @roidelapluie -- 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/20200525195320.GA983523%40oxygen.
