On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:54 AM Bjoern Rabenstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> - The changes as suggested in > > https://github.com/prometheus/docs/commit/f7ee6ac5a9b841be6be25d92e2c403de15949491 > are _not_ following the spirit of RFC7282. I disagree with the above, and with the longer-form text not quoted, as * rough consensus obviously tries to go the happy path of full consensus first * rough consensus as per the commit contains its mechanisms strictly below the stronger mechanisms of majority and supermajority vote > - To truly adopt rough consensus, we need to introduce a chair and get > rid of decision finding by voting (with change of governance, > admitting and removing team members, and electing the chair as > notable exceptions). But that would be a very invasive change of the > governance. If "truly adopting rough consensus" was the proposal, I would agree. That's _not_ the proposal, though. The proposal is to improve the self-contained "consensus" bit while keeping both voting mechanisms intact. As such, there's an easy way out of any impassé. The reason why this is the proposal is the imbalance we have between the three decision making mechanisms: * consensus: * 100% agreement by team members who care to join the discussion * not time-bound * can contain an unlimited amount of explicit and implicit topics in whatever freeform text and places * no social pressure to voice an opinion * majority vote: * 50% agreement by team members who care to join the discussion * time-bound * can contain an explicit list of options on one single topic in a specific place * social pressure to voice an opinion * supermajority vote: * 66% agreement amongst all team members * time-bound * can contain an explicit list of options on one single topic in a specific place * I will track you down and make you vote (whichever way you prefer) to make sure we reach a result one way or the other Consensus should have the weakest, not the strongest, requirements for passing within this system. > - Before we do that, I would prefer to not start a discussion with a > possible solution, but with the problem we are trying to solve. I > think we first have to understand the apparent or actual problems in > decision making much better. Then we are in much better shape to > find a solution. Personally, I feel as if I have a good grasp on the problem domain and the thread seems to reflect that sentiment in others. This is not to say that having a distinct wider discussion in parallel, or instead, wouldn't be an option. Again, personally, I am content with the proposal as is, but I am biased. 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%2BgRFqFVYGS3iBO5Z%3DwT1t9DBwov8tJ9k9vGoYyTZBOS%2BFw%40mail.gmail.com.
