A plea to stop last-minute changes to governance PEPs
Hello folks,
A couple days ago Nathaniel pushed significant changes to his governance PEP (PEP 8016). This means some governance PEPs are apparently still *not* finalized. This raises a problem: when can we consider that we are reading the final version of a proposal (barring wording fixes or improvements), not some work in progress draft?
Not everyone keeps an eye daily on PEP changes and discussions. It would be nice to be able to make one's mind at an idle pace. But that requires that PEP authors don't make last-minute changes in an attempt to gather more support.
In my vote, I may have to devaluate those proposals that keep changing in the last days before the vote, because it doesn't sound like the author can be trusted to propose a stable model.
Regards
Antoine.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 3:17 AM Antoine Pitrou antoine@python.org wrote:
A couple days ago Nathaniel pushed significant changes to his governance PEP (PEP 8016). This means some governance PEPs are apparently still *not* finalized. This raises a problem: when can we consider that we are reading the final version of a proposal (barring wording fixes or improvements), not some work in progress draft?
There were several PEPs that received significant changes in the week before Nov 16 when the "review period" started (at least 8001, 8014, 8015, 8016), but AFAICT none of the PEPs have had any changes since then.
Not everyone keeps an eye daily on PEP changes and discussions. It would be nice to be able to make one's mind at an idle pace. But that requires that PEP authors don't make last-minute changes in an attempt to gather more support.
Thanks for raising this. It's an important issue and one where I've been struggling too.
I'll put my conclusion first. My suggestion:
- We do allow changes to the PEPs until the actual voting starts, but not afterwards
- We leave it up to the PEP authors' judgement what changes they want to make
- The PEP authors will work together to maintain a single shared changelog summarizing every change that's made to the PEPs after Nov. 16, no matter how trivial, and including links to the relevant commits so you can easily see the actual text
- We'll include a link to this changelog prominently in the voting instructions etc.
This is easy to implement, avoids messy subjective judgements about which changes are "too big", allows the PEPs to be tweaked and clarified through the review period, and would mean that so long as you read the PEPs at least once during the review period and then check the changelog before voting, you're guaranteed that you won't miss anything.
Here's my reasoning:
You're absolutely right, it's crucial that everyone know what they're voting on; that's basic to having a valid vote. (And I almost got bitten by this too – PEP 8014 changed a lot on Nov. 9, and it was only by random chance that I noticed it a week later!) But... right now people are still reading the proposals for the first time and requesting changes. And if someone's suggestion would be an actual improvement, and we turn it down because it's too late – that's disenfranchising in a different way, and also, like, deliberately choosing to make our governance worse than necessary, which is sub-optimal. Obviously once the vote starts we *can't* change the PEPs, because that would retroactively change the meaning of votes that were already cast. But until then, freezing and not freezing both make me really uncomfortable. It would be good if we could find a third way.
To make this concrete, here are some examples of things people have brought up re: PEP 8016 since Nov. 16, where I'm not sure what we should do:
Xiang Zhang noticed [1] that PEP 8016 uses a piece of nonstandard terminology: "strict majority" where it means "simple majority". Oops. I feel like fixing this is probably a good idea, and as uncontroversial as any change could be? But OTOH if we don't have a changelog then even trivial changes like this might make you and others uncomfortable (they make me uncomfortable!), because without seeing the change we have no way to judge for ourselves how trivial it actually is.
Xiang Zhang and Victor Stinner are arguing [1, 2] for changing PEP 8016 to effectively require a slightly higher threshold for the steering council to block a new core developer for misconduct (4-out-of-5 instead of 3-out-of-5, see [3] for the details). This is a small tweak in a corner of the proposal we hope will never come up in practice, and it definitely wouldn't change the proposal's overall character, but it is a change. It would produce some procedural simplifications, and apparently make at least two core devs more comfortable. Is that something we should do?
Steve Dower has suggested [4] tweaking when in the release cycle the steering council election is held. This discussion isn't resolved yet, maybe we'll conclude it's a bad idea anyway, but OTOH maybe it would be an improvement? And again it's a super-tiny change.
It's possible PEP 8016 is particularly prone to this because a design goal was to be small and explicit enough to encourage <del>nitpicking</del>detailed review, but I'm not just suggesting this because "my" PEP has special needs. Other potential changes I'm aware of:
Steve Dower is considering withdrawing PEP 8014 entirely [4], which if it happens would be a major substantive change to PEP 8014 that voters would want to know about!
In the course of a discussion that Paul Moore started about processes for promoting core devs, I realized [5] that there's (what feels to me like) a substantial ambiguity in PEPs 8010 and 8011 about how much power the Technical Leader or Trio would actually have – specifically I'd been assuming one thing, but realized that the texts actually don't say either way. I hope Barry and Mariatta will clarify what they intended before the vote starts. No matter which way they clarify things, it may feel like a substantive change to some people, depending on how they read it originally.
In this last case, I *guess* as the co-author of a competing PEP I could be like "haha, PEP 8001 says it's too late for substantive changes so your PEP loses", and then they could be like "no these changes aren't substantive because we're just clarifying what we meant all along", and then I could be like "well as a voter it feels substantive to *me*"... but this sounds like a miserable way to live. I'd really rather Barry and Mariatta have the chance to clarify their PEPs before the vote, so that we all know what our options are and that those options are the best they can be, and that we skip any pointless arguments about it.
The changelog approach is simple, unambiguous, easily enforceable, allows the PEPs to be clarified, avoids intrinsically subjective arguments about what counts as "substantive", and makes it easy for Antoine to know exactly what he's voting on instead of having to trust that everyone else's definition of "minor tweak" matches his own.
-n
[1] https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8016-the-steering-council-model/394/36 [2] https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8016-the-steering-council-model/394/37 [3] https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8016-the-steering-council-model/394/35 [4] https://discuss.python.org/t/working-discussion-for-pep-8016-the-boringest-p... [5] https://discuss.python.org/t/straw-poll-which-governance-proposals-do-you-li...
-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
I maintain a Version History in my PEP 8015: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8015/#version-history
Victor Le lun. 19 nov. 2018 à 12:24, Nathaniel Smith njs@pobox.com a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 3:17 AM Antoine Pitrou antoine@python.org wrote:
A couple days ago Nathaniel pushed significant changes to his governance PEP (PEP 8016). This means some governance PEPs are apparently still *not* finalized. This raises a problem: when can we consider that we are reading the final version of a proposal (barring wording fixes or improvements), not some work in progress draft?
There were several PEPs that received significant changes in the week before Nov 16 when the "review period" started (at least 8001, 8014, 8015, 8016), but AFAICT none of the PEPs have had any changes since then.
Not everyone keeps an eye daily on PEP changes and discussions. It would be nice to be able to make one's mind at an idle pace. But that requires that PEP authors don't make last-minute changes in an attempt to gather more support.
Thanks for raising this. It's an important issue and one where I've been struggling too.
I'll put my conclusion first. My suggestion:
- We do allow changes to the PEPs until the actual voting starts, but not afterwards
- We leave it up to the PEP authors' judgement what changes they want to make
- The PEP authors will work together to maintain a single shared changelog summarizing every change that's made to the PEPs after Nov. 16, no matter how trivial, and including links to the relevant commits so you can easily see the actual text
- We'll include a link to this changelog prominently in the voting instructions etc.
This is easy to implement, avoids messy subjective judgements about which changes are "too big", allows the PEPs to be tweaked and clarified through the review period, and would mean that so long as you read the PEPs at least once during the review period and then check the changelog before voting, you're guaranteed that you won't miss anything.
Here's my reasoning:
You're absolutely right, it's crucial that everyone know what they're voting on; that's basic to having a valid vote. (And I almost got bitten by this too – PEP 8014 changed a lot on Nov. 9, and it was only by random chance that I noticed it a week later!) But... right now people are still reading the proposals for the first time and requesting changes. And if someone's suggestion would be an actual improvement, and we turn it down because it's too late – that's disenfranchising in a different way, and also, like, deliberately choosing to make our governance worse than necessary, which is sub-optimal. Obviously once the vote starts we *can't* change the PEPs, because that would retroactively change the meaning of votes that were already cast. But until then, freezing and not freezing both make me really uncomfortable. It would be good if we could find a third way.
To make this concrete, here are some examples of things people have brought up re: PEP 8016 since Nov. 16, where I'm not sure what we should do:
Xiang Zhang noticed [1] that PEP 8016 uses a piece of nonstandard terminology: "strict majority" where it means "simple majority". Oops. I feel like fixing this is probably a good idea, and as uncontroversial as any change could be? But OTOH if we don't have a changelog then even trivial changes like this might make you and others uncomfortable (they make me uncomfortable!), because without seeing the change we have no way to judge for ourselves how trivial it actually is.
Xiang Zhang and Victor Stinner are arguing [1, 2] for changing PEP 8016 to effectively require a slightly higher threshold for the steering council to block a new core developer for misconduct (4-out-of-5 instead of 3-out-of-5, see [3] for the details). This is a small tweak in a corner of the proposal we hope will never come up in practice, and it definitely wouldn't change the proposal's overall character, but it is a change. It would produce some procedural simplifications, and apparently make at least two core devs more comfortable. Is that something we should do?
Steve Dower has suggested [4] tweaking when in the release cycle the steering council election is held. This discussion isn't resolved yet, maybe we'll conclude it's a bad idea anyway, but OTOH maybe it would be an improvement? And again it's a super-tiny change.
It's possible PEP 8016 is particularly prone to this because a design goal was to be small and explicit enough to encourage <del>nitpicking</del>detailed review, but I'm not just suggesting this because "my" PEP has special needs. Other potential changes I'm aware of:
Steve Dower is considering withdrawing PEP 8014 entirely [4], which if it happens would be a major substantive change to PEP 8014 that voters would want to know about!
In the course of a discussion that Paul Moore started about processes for promoting core devs, I realized [5] that there's (what feels to me like) a substantial ambiguity in PEPs 8010 and 8011 about how much power the Technical Leader or Trio would actually have – specifically I'd been assuming one thing, but realized that the texts actually don't say either way. I hope Barry and Mariatta will clarify what they intended before the vote starts. No matter which way they clarify things, it may feel like a substantive change to some people, depending on how they read it originally.
In this last case, I *guess* as the co-author of a competing PEP I could be like "haha, PEP 8001 says it's too late for substantive changes so your PEP loses", and then they could be like "no these changes aren't substantive because we're just clarifying what we meant all along", and then I could be like "well as a voter it feels substantive to *me*"... but this sounds like a miserable way to live. I'd really rather Barry and Mariatta have the chance to clarify their PEPs before the vote, so that we all know what our options are and that those options are the best they can be, and that we skip any pointless arguments about it.
The changelog approach is simple, unambiguous, easily enforceable, allows the PEPs to be clarified, avoids intrinsically subjective arguments about what counts as "substantive", and makes it easy for Antoine to know exactly what he's voting on instead of having to trust that everyone else's definition of "minor tweak" matches his own.
-n
[1] https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8016-the-steering-council-model/394/36 [2] https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8016-the-steering-council-model/394/37 [3] https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-8016-the-steering-council-model/394/35 [4] https://discuss.python.org/t/working-discussion-for-pep-8016-the-boringest-p... [5] https://discuss.python.org/t/straw-poll-which-governance-proposals-do-you-li...
-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 11:24, Nathaniel Smith njs@pobox.com wrote:
Thanks for raising this. It's an important issue and one where I've been struggling too.
I'll put my conclusion first. My suggestion:
- We do allow changes to the PEPs until the actual voting starts, but not afterwards
- We leave it up to the PEP authors' judgement what changes they want to make
- The PEP authors will work together to maintain a single shared changelog summarizing every change that's made to the PEPs after Nov. 16, no matter how trivial, and including links to the relevant commits so you can easily see the actual text
- We'll include a link to this changelog prominently in the voting instructions etc.
This is easy to implement, avoids messy subjective judgements about which changes are "too big", allows the PEPs to be tweaked and clarified through the review period, and would mean that so long as you read the PEPs at least once during the review period and then check the changelog before voting, you're guaranteed that you won't miss anything.
I agree, this is a really difficult question to get right.
My feeling, however, is that the PEPs that are having the most trouble with this are the ones that are trying to pin down too much detail. Sure (to pick a random example), it's ultimately going to be important that a council have a clear idea of how they reach agreement on banning a core developer, should that situation come up. But is it really going to be so critical to establish that detail *right now* that someone would change their vote **to a completely different governance model** if the number of votes was set at 3 or 4? And is the proposal explicitly denying us the chance to change that number based on experience going forward?[1]
I realise this is precisely the point you made about subjective judgements, but I think it needs to be taken in context. I have a maximum of 7 proposals to choose from (6 if Steve withdraws his). I'm interested in the overall "shape" of the proposal (leader or group who decides vs community voting for example) and the "tone" (is it concerned with pinning down lots of details, does it assume we'll trust each other to work in good faith, is it bureaucratic, is it well-established or novel, etc). The sorts of changes you're talking about in the examples you give mostly leave me with a feeling of "this proposal is prone to getting bogged down in details, it's overspecified", and that's what will affect my vote rather than the actual detail being debated[2].
It's possible PEP 8016 is particularly prone to this because a design goal was to be small and explicit enough to encourage <del>nitpicking</del>detailed review, but I'm not just suggesting this because "my" PEP has special needs.
I'd characterise this more as "PEPs that try to specify too much detail are prone to this because they encourage 'detailed review'"... ;-)
- Steve Dower is considering withdrawing PEP 8014 entirely [4], which if it happens would be a major substantive change to PEP 8014 that voters would want to know about!
Knowing about it - definitely. But more importantly, I'd like to know *why*! If Steve no longer considers his proposal worth voting for, what is his logic, and what does he consider a reasonable alternative for people who *did* want to vote for it? Personally, I'm not that worried as that wasn't one of my preferred proposals, but I do think that if you have created a proposal, you have a certain level of responsibility to the people who liked it to give them information on what you view as the "migration path" from what they voted for to where you are now (and "not being able to vote for it" is a pretty extreme case of that!)
- In the course of a discussion that Paul Moore started about processes for promoting core devs, I realized [5] that there's (what feels to me like) a substantial ambiguity in PEPs 8010 and 8011 about how much power the Technical Leader or Trio would actually have – specifically I'd been assuming one thing, but realized that the texts actually don't say either way. I hope Barry and Mariatta will clarify what they intended before the vote starts. No matter which way they clarify things, it may feel like a substantive change to some people, depending on how they read it originally.
And yet, I hope they don't, as a key point for me about their proposals is that they *don't* try to specify everything up front, but rather they allow for the leader/council to make judgements as time goes on. If you feel that as a result their proposals are underspecified, by all means vote for something else.
In this last case, I *guess* as the co-author of a competing PEP I could be like "haha, PEP 8001 says it's too late for substantive changes so your PEP loses", and then they could be like "no these changes aren't substantive because we're just clarifying what we meant all along", and then I could be like "well as a voter it feels substantive to *me*"... but this sounds like a miserable way to live.
So is forming an opinion by viewing the proposals, and then hoping that no-one publishes a rewrite that means you have to rethink your position at the last minute. It doesn't really help that you have a way of being notified about major changes, the point is that we don't want them to *happen*. (Yes, "major" is subjective once again, I know.)
I'd really rather Barry and Mariatta have the chance to clarify their PEPs before the vote, so that we all know what our options are and that those options are the best they can be, and that we skip any pointless arguments about it.
Assuming that we'll deal with things when they happen is also an option, IMO. I'd prefer it if we didn't reach a point where no proposal offered that option. And frankly, changing from a relatively underspecified position of "give some people authority, and let them make the decisions" approach to one more like "elect a group/individual to implement the set of rules we state here" is *definitely* a substantive change, so one I'd oppose allowing now that the review period has started.
The changelog approach is simple, unambiguous, easily enforceable, allows the PEPs to be clarified, avoids intrinsically subjective arguments about what counts as "substantive", and makes it easy for Antoine to know exactly what he's voting on instead of having to trust that everyone else's definition of "minor tweak" matches his own.
... but means that in theory, *anything* could change right up to the start of the voting period, which makes the introduction of an explicit review period pointless - we could just as easily have started the voting period on the 16th in that case.
[1] It's possible that it *is* that important for some proposals. That says to me that those proposals don't have enough built in flexibility to react to unexpected situations (e.g., they have no mechanism for deciding on a decision making system for an unanticipated event). [2] And yes, that does mean that I'm currently inclined towards particular governance models based more on how they are presented, rather than on how they are structured. I'm not going to apologise for that, or even accept that it's wrong. Any system can work if it's implemented in a sufficiently flexible and sympathetic manner, conversely any system can fail if it gets bogged down in bureaucracy and over dependence on rule-book solutions.
Paul
PS I wrote this without going back over the PEPs, apologies if I've misremembered or misrepresented anyone's proposal as a result of that. PPS It's quite possible that my comments here aren't 100% consistent with what I've previously written. I'm still forming my opinions and they are changing over time - as well as not being super-precise in the first place (I'm judging a lot of this on "gut instinct" that I can't always put into words). So apologies for that as well.
On 19Nov2018 0530, Paul Moore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 11:24, Nathaniel Smith njs@pobox.com wrote:
- Steve Dower is considering withdrawing PEP 8013 entirely [4], which if it happens would be a major substantive change to PEP 8013 that voters would want to know about!
Knowing about it - definitely. But more importantly, I'd like to know *why*! If Steve no longer considers his proposal worth voting for, what is his logic, and what does he consider a reasonable alternative for people who *did* want to vote for it? Personally, I'm not that worried as that wasn't one of my preferred proposals, but I do think that if you have created a proposal, you have a certain level of responsibility to the people who liked it to give them information on what you view as the "migration path" from what they voted for to where you are now (and "not being able to vote for it" is a pretty extreme case of that!)
[I corrected the quote to read PEP 8013]
FWIW, I'm thinking about withdrawing it because PEP 8016 captures my highest priorities (specifically, core developers don't have a monopoly on decision-making skills, and don't apply unnecessary constraints on whoever leads in this PEP). The rest of my proposal is just enough detail to be functional, but I'm not really wedded to it, so if there's an alternative that mirrors the core values then I'll tell people to go vote for that instead of mine.
Right now there's one blocking concern I have with 8016 [1], but once that's fixed I'll happily just tell people that if they were planning to vote for PEP 8013, they should have been putting 8016 second anyway, and now they can just put it first :)
Cheers, Steve
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 16:32, Steve Dower steve.dower@python.org wrote:
FWIW, I'm thinking about withdrawing it because PEP 8016 captures my highest priorities (specifically, core developers don't have a monopoly on decision-making skills, and don't apply unnecessary constraints on whoever leads in this PEP). The rest of my proposal is just enough detail to be functional, but I'm not really wedded to it, so if there's an alternative that mirrors the core values then I'll tell people to go vote for that instead of mine.
Interesting. I considered the distinguishing feature of your proposal to be that it explicitly *excludes* core devs from the council (to the extent that you call out that feature as what distinguishes it from 8011). I wasn't keen on that, so I never really got much beyond that aspect of your proposal to be honest - so it's weird to me that you don't think it's particularly significant.
But thanks for the clarification. Paul
On 19Nov2018 0838, Paul Moore wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 16:32, Steve Dower steve.dower@python.org wrote:
FWIW, I'm thinking about withdrawing it because PEP 8016 captures my highest priorities (specifically, core developers don't have a monopoly on decision-making skills, and don't apply unnecessary constraints on whoever leads in this PEP). The rest of my proposal is just enough detail to be functional, but I'm not really wedded to it, so if there's an alternative that mirrors the core values then I'll tell people to go vote for that instead of mine.
Interesting. I considered the distinguishing feature of your proposal to be that it explicitly *excludes* core devs from the council (to the extent that you call out that feature as what distinguishes it from 8011). I wasn't keen on that, so I never really got much beyond that aspect of your proposal to be honest - so it's weird to me that you don't think it's particularly significant.
But thanks for the clarification. Paul
That was mainly just the easiest way to deal with conflicts of interest, but it was always a point that I'd bargain away if people were really upset about it :)
I'm sure we'll find sensible ways to deal with people who want to get elected just to pass their own PEPs.
Cheers, Steve
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 5:30 AM Paul Moore p.f.moore@gmail.com wrote:
My feeling, however, is that the PEPs that are having the most trouble with this are the ones that are trying to pin down too much detail. Sure (to pick a random example), it's ultimately going to be important that a council have a clear idea of how they reach agreement on banning a core developer, should that situation come up. But is it really going to be so critical to establish that detail *right now* that someone would change their vote **to a completely different governance model** if the number of votes was set at 3 or 4? And is the proposal explicitly denying us the chance to change that number based on experience going forward?[1]
PEP 8016 does try to specify all the details needed to get us out of our current state of ambiguity, so that if we adopt it then we're ready to go immediately and never have to go back to our current ill-defined process. That forces it to specify various details, but beyond that it tries to specify as little as possible (so lots of details are delegated to the future governance system, rather than being resolved right now), and for the things that it does specify, it also specifies how we can change them: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8016/#changing-this-document . So we can totally change things going forward.
If the PEP left blank spaces to be filled in later, then when would we fill them in, and how? Are you imagining we'd have a second round of voting to fill in the details, or what are you thinking?
I realise this is precisely the point you made about subjectivea way to change those details – see judgements, but I think it needs to be taken in context. I have a maximum of 7 proposals to choose from (6 if Steve withdraws his). I'm interested in the overall "shape" of the proposal (leader or group who decides vs community voting for example) and the "tone" (is it concerned with pinning down lots of details, does it assume we'll trust each other to work in good faith, is it bureaucratic, is it well-established or novel, etc). The sorts of changes you're talking about in the examples you give mostly leave me with a feeling of "this proposal is prone to getting bogged down in details, it's overspecified", and that's what will affect my vote rather than the actual detail being debated[2].
Well, that's up to you I guess :-). None of the bureaucratic details in PEP 8016 have anything to do with day-to-day development, and for uncontroversial decisions, governance doesn't matter at all. The only time a governance PEP matters is when we hit an ambiguous situation where people are disagreeing. IMO that means the governance probably shouldn't leave the details ambiguous and assume people will agree on how to handle them :-).
But that's kind of neither here nor there... even if you disagree with me about that, I hope we can still agree on one thing:
- In the course of a discussion that Paul Moore started about processes for promoting core devs, I realized [5] that there's (what feels to me like) a substantial ambiguity in PEPs 8010 and 8011 about how much power the Technical Leader or Trio would actually have – specifically I'd been assuming one thing, but realized that the texts actually don't say either way. I hope Barry and Mariatta will clarify what they intended before the vote starts. No matter which way they clarify things, it may feel like a substantive change to some people, depending on how they read it originally.
And yet, I hope they don't, as a key point for me about their proposals is that they *don't* try to specify everything up front, but rather they allow for the leader/council to make judgements as time goes on. If you feel that as a result their proposals are underspecified, by all means vote for something else.
If you're right that Barry's intent for PEP 8010 is to make it a kind of "template" for a future governance PEP, with details intentionally left underspecified to be filled in later by some yet-to-be-determined process, then it would still be helpful for him to specify *that*. That would give us both the information we need to vote :-).
-n
-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
participants (5)
-
Antoine Pitrou -
Nathaniel Smith -
Paul Moore -
Steve Dower -
Victor Stinner