On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:57 PM Julien Pivotto <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 May 22:55, Julius Volz wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:17 PM Bartłomiej Płotka <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > I support 100% of what Julius said: > > > > > > *> In general, +10 for a change in this direction, since currently, > the > > > balance is too much in favor of inaction - it's really easy to veto > > > something, but really hard to unblock it because team-wide votes are > > > high-overhead.* > > > *> I would also want to understand a bit more specifically how this > would > > > work in practice though. * > > > > > > +1 on moving to a rough consensus as I think it's stepping into a good > > > direction. > > > > > > Overall, I feel that our team is not a children's playground, we are > team > > > of professionals. This means that we trust each other, so no one in > > > Prometheus will decide something totally against someone else's strong > > > opposite vote. > > > > > > > If we don't want to go totally against someone's strong opposing vote, > then > > I think we could just leave the governance as it is. I thought the point > > was to make it possible to go against someone's strong opposing vote, > just > > as long as it's considered. And if they are still against something, they > > can still call for a vote, but now that burden would be on the minority > > blocker party. > > > Yes that is what I think too. Note that rough consensus means that > sometimes the minority wins too. > Even if there's already an outspoken (relative) majority against that minority? How would that be rough consensus then? > > > > > > > On a separate note, while I believe in maintaining high project quality > > > for everything we ship, I think we should be way more open into the > > > experimenting bit more in Prometheus. Having some experimental features > > > under a flag is something that gives quicker feedback if the API, > feature, > > > or given logic makes sense for a wider user base. For majority of > cases we > > > always reject those because "it's support burden", "this does not help > much > > > for Prometheus only Cortex/Thanos/XYZ", "this overlap with older, less > > > efficient API", "we don't like those extra dependencies (e.g gRPC)", > > > "people will not use it". This might be off-topic here, but I feel like > > > this is another thing which could improve the velocity of Prometheus > and > > > usability of the project itself (: > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > Bartek > > > > > > On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 20:53, Julien Pivotto < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> 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 > > >> . > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > 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/CA%2BT6YoxDKMgf%2BEmyWG3%3D1KMW_Z99-Ky8kmFo12VgmejKRS%2Bk4w%40mail.gmail.com > . > > -- > 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/CA%2BT6YoxEVQAerZx40j1vdz%2Bm5RO21qbxDKj7D3wvC38EDKYCdA%40mail.gmail.com.
