On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 22:08, Julius Volz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > The doc Richi linked covers it in some depth. Rough concensus can cover both a minority "winning" over a majority, and a majority being in favour not being sufficient for rough concensus. It's all about if objections are sufficiently considered. The doc is more aspirational/philosophical rather than a formal policy, so I think it doesn't work as a governance in those terms as it's kinda vague. Brian > > >> > >> > >> > > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/CA%2BT6YoxEVQAerZx40j1vdz%2Bm5RO21qbxDKj7D3wvC38EDKYCdA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAHJKeLqyupF1B_jd2_RrGv%3DDncWMPEMP3q3MmJJ%3D4cdHH-%3DxaQ%40mail.gmail.com.
