And if we would remove all 'shades of grey' and go back just to +1 and -1 where people would need to make their mind up *clearly* which would lead stronger arguments of doing or not doing this.
-------- Regards, Ina Panova Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > In this model of where only -1 votes stop the PUP from passing, wouldn’t > it mean that there needn't be any consensus at all? In other words we could > effectively strike the language about consensus from PUP-1. This model > makes me worried that people other than those casting -1 won’t bother to > vote or participate since only -1 votes matter. > > I personally like the idea of having at least 30% that are +1 or +0. This > means that enough -0 votes can still block the vote, and also +0 votes goes > towards helping the PUP pass. Thus +0 and -0 would both matter. I think > this is a good compromise between the extremes of "broad buy-in" and > "default to change." > > > David > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> We should (I thought we did) adopt a process that favors change and does >> not have a "broad buy-in requirement". Any change that doesn't harm the >> project should be allowed without broad buy-in. This empowers even a single >> individual to enact change. This makes Pulp better because: >> >> * Everyone is empowered. A single individual can have a meaningful impact. >> * Anyone can stop an idea that will negatively affect the project or >> community via veto. >> * We avoid the tyranny of the majority [0] or supermajority. >> * It avoids politics. If we start averaging, or counting votes >> for/against in an offsetting way, there will be politics. Counting votes >> for/against will create inequality because influential project members will >> likely see their ideas adopted but others won't. Having a "default to >> change and any core dev can veto" approach creates equality. >> >> Regarding how "obvious consensus" works with the "veto-or-it-passes" >> model, if there are zero -1 votes cast, that means no one wanted to stop >> the process. If no wants to stop it, and at least one is for it, then the >> most sensible thing to do is to pass it. Since someone took time to write >> the PUP there is obviously someone giving it a +1. If one person really >> wants to go to place X for dinner (aka a +1), and there are no >> counterproposals (aka a -1 with a suggestion) or strong preferences against >> (aka -0 or +0) then the group will probably go to place X for dinner by way >> of "obvious consensus". >> >> In summary, adopting a "default to accept or reject with even a single >> veto" system creates an equal system. A system where, a single individual >> can make a difference, and anyone can stop a bad idea from occurring. To >> @mhrivnak's point about a change not meeting a broad range of needs, I >> expect -1's to be cast in those cases, so this system is still very safe in >> terms of protecting the projects needs and interests. >> >> [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority >> >> -Brian >> >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:53 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Not sure this is true. I actually abstained from voting on PUP-3 because >>> I was somewhere between a +0 and a -0. >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Having at least one +1 is not impartial approach just because the >>>> developer who , as you said, found the time for the research and writing >>>> down the proposal obviously will vote as +1 :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Ina Panova >>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>> >>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This reminds me of the concept of a "Do-ocracy". >>>>> >>>>> If developers take the time to research and write up a proposal, they >>>>> have "done". It seems completely reasonable to default to the opinion of >>>>> the people that cared enough to do the work. If it isn't the right >>>>> decision, then someone must actively block it, simple as that. >>>>> >>>>> I think the rule should be "PUP passes if we have at least one +1 and >>>>> no -1s". >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
