Re: [MirageOS-devel] [PATCH 3/3] Significant changes to decision making; some new roles and minor changes

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:35:38PM +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> 
> 
> On 26/08/2016 07:49, "Wei Liu" <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 09:28:49AM +0000, Lars Kurth wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 12/08/2016 14:01, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >>>> On 12.08.16 at 14:53, <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> On 12/08/2016 13:41, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On 12.08.16 at 01:13, <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>>> +### Lazy Consensus {#lazyconsensus}
> >> >>>> +
> >> >>>>[snip]
> >> >>>> +
> >> >>>> +Objections by stake-holders should be expressed using the
> >> >>>>[conventions
> >> >>>> +above](#expressingopinion) to make disagreements easily
> >>identifiable.
> >> >>>> +
> >> >>>> +__Passed/Failed:__
> >> >>>> +
> >> >>>> +-   Failed: A single **-2** by a stake-holder whose approval is
> >> >>>>necessary
> >> >>>> +-   Failed: **-1**'s by all stake-holder whose approval is
> >>necessary
> >> >>>> +-   Passed: In all other situations
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Hmm, that means all -1's except a single 0 would already be a pass?
> >> >> 
> >> >> That is not the intention. If we have only -1's and 0's it should be
> >>a
> >> >> fail. 
> >> >> Let me fix this in the next revisions.
> >> >> 
> >> >> How about: 
> >> >> +-   Failed: Only **-1** or **0** votes by all stake-holder whose
> >> >>approval
> >> >> is necessary
> >> >
> >> >That would still leave 10 -1's overruled by a single +1.
> >> >
> >> >> Although maybe someone can come up with a clearer way to express
> >>this.
> >> >
> >> >Maybe when there are no +2's, simply take the sum of all votes,
> >> >and require it to be non-negative?
> >> 
> >> That would work. Any other opinions?
> >
> >When there are no +2's *and -2's* ?
> 
> I guess we are a little confused here.
> 
> A -2 is a strong objection. So what we are saying is that with a strong
> objection we can't move forward. Now we are only using this scheme for
> expressing opinion informally and on Lazy Consensus. The central idea
> behind Lazy consensus is that WE DO NOT NEED to explicitly express
> agreement: in other words, the default when someone does not saying
> anything is a +1 (an implicit agreement).
> 
> I added the "Only **-1** or **0** votes by all stake-holder whose", as
> this would be a strong signal that people generally think we don't have a
> good proposal and nobody is willing to defend it in any way.
> 
> +2's and -2's are in some sense a way to highlight that we have a strong
> disagreement on an issue, whereas if we had +1's to -1's we only have a
> minor disagreement.
> 
> I am not quite sure how to encode this using a formula. Looking for
> feedback, but will do a little research in Apache, Eclipse and other FOSS
> projects
> 

I wish we can't get into a situation that more than one rule could be
applied. So with your original words, a vote with one -2 and six +1's
(assuming 7 valid votes in total) can have two interpretations.

 Failed: A single **-2** by a stake-holder whose approval is necessary
 Passed: No +2's but total sum >0

Maybe I missed something here?

Or do you want to explicitly state the precedence of rules?

Wei.

> Lars 
> 

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel