decision making (wsa Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module)

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 15/06/2011 20:11, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 15/06/2011 19:50, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>> On 06/15/2011 07:59 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

...

>>> Here's a few links:
>>>
>>> http://s.apache.org/H8J
>>> http://s.apache.org/D16
>>> http://community.apache.org/committers/

...

>  From http://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html:
>
> "Sometimes a member of the community will believe a specific action is
> the correct one for the community but are not sure enough to proceed
> with the work under the lazy consensus model. In these circumstances
> they can state Lazy Consensus is in operation."

On reading that back I realise it's a horrible explanation, so I just 
changed it to:

"Sometimes a member of the community will believe a specific action is 
the correct one for the project but are not sure that there will be 
consensus. In these circumstances they may not wish to proceed with the 
work without giving the community an opportunity to feedback. In these 
circumstances they can make the proposal and state Lazy Consensus is in 
operation."

Ross

Re: decision making (wsa Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module)

[Steve Lee <st...@fullmeasure.co.uk>]

On 15 June 2011 20:39, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On reading that back I realise it's a horrible explanation, so I just
>> changed it to:
>>
>> "Sometimes a member of the community will believe a specific action is the
>> correct one for the project but are not sure that there will be consensus.
>> In these circumstances they may not wish to proceed with the work without
>> giving the community an opportunity to feedback. In these circumstances they
>> can make the proposal and state Lazy Consensus is in operation."
>
> Meta observation: this change did not require board level approval, no
> vote was taken, and in fact as far as I know Ross didn't ask anybody's
> permission; he just saw something that needed to be fixed and did it.
> We have lots of checks and balances built in: notifications get sent
> out on the changes, the source itself is under version control, etc.

Meta comment - I notice Ross also posted to the list that he had done
so - 'if it didn't happen on the list. It didn't happen'. Thus I see
there's a chance to respond before the 'checks and balances' kick in.

Steve Lee

Re: decision making (wsa Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module)

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 15:39, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>...
> In the rare event that somebody wishes to take exception to a change
> like this, we deal with that on an exception basis; sometimes this is
> simply a matter of somebody else fixing the fix.  In extreme cases we
> may decide to first revert the controversial change and then talk
> through the issue on the relevant list.

Short note: ALWAYS let the original person perform the revert. They
should recognize lack of consensus, understand there isn't a way
forward at the time, and perform the revert. (of course, the "wrong"
stuff could be left in, the community decides a fix, and you move
onwards without a (temporary) revert)

The only reason to perform a revert for somebody else's work is if
there is build breakage that prevents everybody from working (and note
that I said *build* rather than *test*). Or maybe if the person just
drops off communications for an extended period of time.

Taking a unilateral action (revert) against somebody else's commit is
one of the highest forms of antisocial behavior. I've run into this a
couple times[1] and so it really wanted to stress this particular
point.

And yes, I know Sam wasn't referring to this kind of behavior. He said
"we may decide". I just wanted to clarify who would *perform* the
revert after that decision.

Cheers,
-g

[1] the latest was actually a commit/revert war that went two cycles
before it escalated. very uncool.

Re: decision making (wsa Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module)

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On reading that back I realise it's a horrible explanation, so I just
> changed it to:
>
> "Sometimes a member of the community will believe a specific action is the
> correct one for the project but are not sure that there will be consensus.
> In these circumstances they may not wish to proceed with the work without
> giving the community an opportunity to feedback. In these circumstances they
> can make the proposal and state Lazy Consensus is in operation."

Meta observation: this change did not require board level approval, no
vote was taken, and in fact as far as I know Ross didn't ask anybody's
permission; he just saw something that needed to be fixed and did it.
We have lots of checks and balances built in: notifications get sent
out on the changes, the source itself is under version control, etc.

In the rare event that somebody wishes to take exception to a change
like this, we deal with that on an exception basis; sometimes this is
simply a matter of somebody else fixing the fix.  In extreme cases we
may decide to first revert the controversial change and then talk
through the issue on the relevant list.

It is way too early to worry about exiting incubation just yet, but a
key component of making that happen will be having the PPMC
demonstrate that they are capable of self-governance.

> Ross

- Sam Ruby