[Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

Thu Aug 10 13:21:26 UTC 2017

+1. I think this is worth trying out.

David

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> Thank you Brian!
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A small language clarification was pushed based on feedback via comment:
>> https://github.com/bmbouter/pups/commit/f5b7282b2d2e369b90f1
>> 49e4cc25226bb093171b
>>
>> Voting is open for the PUP1 revisions. Normally the voting window is
>> longer, but this topic has been discussed for a long time. The core team
>> earlier this week decided a shorter voting window was appropriate in this
>> case. Voting will close at midnight UTC on Friday Aug 11th. Please raise
>> any concerns around this process. Otherwise, please send in votes via this
>> thread. I'll cast mine now.
>>
>> +1 to passing the pup1 revisions.
>>
>> Thanks to everyone who has contributed comments and energy into this
>> topic.
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> After some in-person convo, the core team wants to open PUP1 revision
>>> voting on Wednesday and close it at midnight UTC on Friday Aug 11th. We
>>> will pass/not-pass according this the voting outlined in PUP1 itself (a
>>> variation on self-hosting [0]). We also want to ask that any comments on
>>> the PUP1 revisions by posted before midnight UTC tomorrow Aug 8th.
>>>
>>> [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting
>>>
>>> -Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've pushed a new commit [3] to the PR. It includes the following
>>>> changes. Please review and comment. If there are any major/blocking
>>>> concerns about adopting this please raise them. Once the PUP1 revisions are
>>>> resolved, PUP2 can also be accepted based on the votes it had previously.
>>>>
>>>> * Adjusts the +1 approvals to come from anywhere, not just core devs
>>>> * Explicitly allows for votes to be recast
>>>> * Explains two examples where votes are recast. One is based on many
>>>> other -1 votes being cast. The other is when concerns are addressed and a
>>>> -1 vote is recast.
>>>>
>>>> [3]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/5/commits/959c67f5a4d16a26
>>>> e1d97ea6fe4aa570066db768
>>>>
>>>> -Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From the discussion on the call last week, I've made some revisions
>>>>> [2] to explore the idea of having a lazy consensus model. Comments, ideas,
>>>>> concerns are welcome either on the PR or via this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> As @mhrivnak pointed out, the adoption of a lazy consensus model is
>>>>> meaningfully different than the language we have in pup1 today which uses
>>>>> "obvious consensus". I want to be up front about that change [2]. If anyone
>>>>> significantly disagrees with this direction, or has concerns, please raise
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/5/
>>>>>
>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After some in-person discussion, we will have a call to discuss ideas
>>>>>> and options regarding the pup1 process. We will use this etherpad [0] for
>>>>>> notes, and we will recap the information to the list also. In preparation,
>>>>>> please continue to share ideas, perspectives and concerns via this list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When: June 22nd, 1pm UTC. See this in your local timezone here [1].
>>>>>> The call will last no longer than 1 hour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How to connect:
>>>>>> video chat:    https://bluejeans.com/697488960
>>>>>> phone only: + 800 451 8679   Enter Meeting ID: 697488960
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0]: http://pad-katello.rhcloud.com/p/Pulp_PUP_Process_Revisited
>>>>>> [1]: http://bit.ly/2rJqegX
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Back to where we started, having digested the discussion here and
>>>>>>> references cited, it seems clear that we have a system based on consensus,
>>>>>>> and that there is strong desire for decisions about process to continue
>>>>>>> being made with consensus. In terms of "obvious consensus", I'll propose
>>>>>>> that if any core member thinks it has not been reached, it has (perhaps by
>>>>>>> definition) not been reached.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PUP0001 simply states in that case, "If obvious consensus is not
>>>>>>> reached, then the core devs decide." We don't need to over-complicate this.
>>>>>>> We've had reasonable success for many years at making process changes and
>>>>>>> agreeing on them. The PUP system should be a tool that helps us define a
>>>>>>> proposal as best we can, while providing a focal point for discussion. It
>>>>>>> should not unduly impede our ability to make decisions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So in a case where consensus is not obvious, can we talk it out
>>>>>>> among the core devs, particularly those with reservations, and make it our
>>>>>>> collective responsibility to find a path forward? Do we need to define it
>>>>>>> in more detail than that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:22 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like centos model but personally I’m not a fan of the lazy
>>>>>>>> consensus option (X=0). Instead, I like the idea of having X be greater
>>>>>>>> than 1 (preferably 2). I feel like if there’s at least two people driving a
>>>>>>>> change (i.e. X=2) then if one person leaves the project, we’ll still have
>>>>>>>> someone who is able and motivated to take on the maintenance and evolution
>>>>>>>> of the change. That said, I am happy to test out the model where X=0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Brian Bouterse <
>>>>>>>> bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I asked about some of these governance questions to a group of
>>>>>>>>> community managers from several open source projects that I meet with
>>>>>>>>> weekly. They said that if you don't have a BDFL (Pulp does not) the other
>>>>>>>>> very popular model is the lazy consensus model. I think lazy consensus is
>>>>>>>>> the spirit of pup1. I asked for some examples and they pointed me at the
>>>>>>>>> CentOS governance model [0][1].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also @daviddavis and I were talking and codifying the problem as
>>>>>>>>> what value should X be if X are the number of +1s required to pass a
>>>>>>>>> decision with zero -1 votes (vetos)? The CentOS governance model sets X = 0
>>>>>>>>> by stating "There is no minimum +1 vote requirement". I'm also advocating
>>>>>>>>> for X=0 for the reasons I wrote in my earlier email. Practically speaking,
>>>>>>>>> I don't think an X=1, or X=2 will prevent many proposals that would have
>>>>>>>>> also passed with X=0.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regardless of the X value, we should continue the discussion so we
>>>>>>>>> can arrive at a decision on both pup1 and pup3. Thanks for continuing the
>>>>>>>>> convo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [0]: https://www.centos.org/about/governance/appendix-glossary/#c
>>>>>>>>> onsensus-decision-making
>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://www.centos.org/about/governance/voting/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>> daviddavis at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> bbouters at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>> daviddavis at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipanova at 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amacdona at 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 at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael Hrivnak
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170810/744fe964/attachment.htm>