> > > My opinion is that we have stalled and punted several very important > issues when lazy consensus was too lazy. This has slowed our progress > enough that I am interested in fleshing out alternatives. >
+1 On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'm not ready to pursue a single decision maker model for Pulp's >> technical decisions or community leadership. >> > > OpenStack tech leads aren't "single decision makers", they are a fallback > for when consensus isn't reached. In theory the role *could *scope creep > to "single decision makers" depending on the style of the individual, but > elections prevent that if the voters are responsible. > > >> I also have concerns about those positions being rotating roles since >> typically they require much experience. This would also be a departure from >> the lazy consensus decision making model we use for community decisions >> (the pup process itself). >> > > A "rotating role" is different than an elected position. I'm not sure what > Milan meant by "time boxed", but I imagine this would just be another > election, not a term limit. I think if this is done well, it would augment > the lazy consensus model, not replace it. > >> >> There would need to be a lot of discussion with input from many people >> around what the issues currently are so we can be sure that changes would >> resolve those issues. >> > > +1 We should set this up carefully. I think a PUP is the right way to do > that. > > My opinion is that we have stalled and punted several very important > issues when lazy consensus was too lazy. This has slowed our progress > enough that I am interested in fleshing out alternatives. > > >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:54 AM, Milan Kovacik <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Oh I'd forget that we actually don't really have a formal process to >>> recognize and retire active contributors yet; >>> how about the technical lead proposes both the recognition and >>> retirement anytime they find reason to do so, for the former >>> situation, with a pre-approval of other active contributors, propose >>> folks publicly, for the latter situation, try reaching out to the >>> retiring contributor before going public to avoid frustration. >>> Folks of course would ideally announce their intention to retire, the >>> formal process would be conducted by the technical lead. >>> The insignia of an active contributor would be the commit bit on any >>> of the Pulp projects. >>> The first ever technical and community leads would be elected by folks >>> with the commit bit, the election would be organized by our current >>> community representatives. >>> >>> Unless there are objections, I'd file a PUP to summarize these points. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> milan >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Milan Kovacik <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> Interesting proposals Milan! >>> >> >>> >> I am forking Brian's email so that thread can focus on communication, >>> >> redmine, etc. >>> > >>> > Thanks, I guess it would best go hand-in-hand with the process update >>> > proposal for the Technical specifications/blue-prints PUP: >>> > >>> >>> I'd add that many a time, an e-mail based technical discussion gets >>> >>> messy and unfolds in multiple branches over multiple months. >>> >>> I'd like to propose we adopt a Technical Specification concept, >>> living >>> >>> in a separate GitHub repo, similar to the PUP process. >>> >>> This would take advantage of our review process, preferably requiring >>> >>> multiple (core) reviewers acks before merging, allowing Redmine to be >>> >>> used for planning/tracking the (design) work. >>> >>> I think it's easier to manage the life-cycle of a larger Technical >>> >>> Specification in a revision system document than an e-mail thread and >>> >>> a single Redmine issue. >>> >>> It also helps (feature) documentation and provides context. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Milan Kovacik <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I'd also like to propose formal Project Technical Lead and a formal >>> >>> Project Community Lead roles to be able to decide in case of >>> competing >>> >>> (technical) ideas or planning priorities. >>> >>> These would have to be time-boxed (half a year) and folks would elect >>> >>> the leader for a period based on leader's program, such as focus on >>> >>> particular goals for instance testing or refactoring. >>> >>> Any single person would be able to perform either the Community or >>> the >>> >>> Technical Lead role in any given period but not both at the same >>> time. >>> >>> The Community Lead role would take care for organizing the Technical >>> >>> Lead elections and vice versa, the Technical Lead would take care >>> >>> about organizing the Community Lead elections. >>> >>> The electorate would be the active contributors for both the roles. >>> >>> The candidates would be the active contributors too. >>> >>> >>> >>> This would open up the decision making process for anyone from the >>> >>> community, would encourage transparency, accountability and >>> >>> responsibility and would allow us to come to a decision on competing >>> >>> (technical) ideas or planning issues in case we'd got stuck. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> milan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I agree the decision process for core itself needs discussion. For >>> now, >>> >>> > I'm >>> >>> > only able to offer facilitating a convo that focuses on the >>> >>> > communication >>> >>> > aspects not the decision process. I would like to improve the >>> >>> > transparency >>> >>> > into the features that will and won't be in any given release for >>> our >>> >>> > stakeholders. I hope we do discuss decision process as its own >>> >>> > discussion; >>> >>> > it's certainly deserving of a pup of its own. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > For the communication issues, soon I will share a basic outline of >>> one >>> >>> > way >>> >>> > we could use Redmine for release planning. This would be a starter >>> idea >>> >>> > towards a solution for us to modify together. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Austin Macdonald < >>> [email protected]> >>> >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> I agree with the problems that Brian listed, but I hope we can >>> focus on >>> >>> >> the decision making process itself in addition to how those >>> decisions >>> >>> >> are >>> >>> >> communicated. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>> >>> > [email protected] >>> >>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
