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

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Lars 

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