Proposal: an explicit, time-limited moratorium on finalizing any governance decisions
[tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate about the ground rules then that defeats the purpose. My proposal for a Minimum Viable Ground Rule: let's all agree not to finalize any governance decisions before October 1.]
We're in a constitutional crisis, and that's scary. There's no map and none of us know what to expect. It feels like anything could happen. You look at the mailing list and see people making big proposals -- is one of them going to suddenly be adopted? If I look away for a few days, will I come back and find out that something's been decided? What are we even talking about? Do I need to jump into that thread RIGHT NOW? It's scary.
People don't do their best work when scared. When we're scared it's harder to listen and build up common ground with others -- but that's exactly what we'll need to do to get through this. And also, like... being scared sucks. I would prefer to be less scared.
So: can we do anything to make this less scary?
One thing that would help is if we had some ground-rules for how the decision itself will be made. Knowing what to expect makes things less scary. There's another thread going on right now trying to do that (subject "Proposal on how to vote"). But... if you look at that thread, it turns out deciding on how to vote is itself an important decision with lots of subtle issues, where we probably want to give people time to think, brainstorm, critique. Heck, in the end we might decide a vote isn't even the best approach. So I'm not saying we shouldn't be having that discussion, we definitely should, but... it's also giving me a new source of anxiety: that we'll all be so eager to get *some* certainty here that we'll end up trying to force a decision prematurely. Kind of a catch-22: the decision about how to make complex decisions is itself a complex decision, which is what we don't know how to do yet.
Is there some way to avoid this loop? Can we come up with some ground rules simple enough that we can agree on them without a big debate? Well, there's one thing I am pretty sure of: this is a big decision, there's a lot to think about and talk about, and that we won't regret taking some time some time to do that. And besides, trying to force it to happen faster will make people more scared and dig in their heels.
So here's my proposal for an initial, Minimum Viable Ground Rule: we should set a date and promise that no actual decisions will be finalized before that. Until then we are just talking and brainstorming and gradually converging on points of consensus. (And to be clear, the point of this is to give us breathing room, not set a deadline -- we shouldn't dawdle, but if we get there and it turns out we need more time, then that's OK.)
What would be a good date? The core sprint is coming up Sept. 10-14, and this seems to be a likely topic of conversation there. And then after the sprint, those who aren't present will need time to catch up with any discussions that happened at the sprint. So to make things concrete, I propose: no governance decisions finalized before October 1, 2018.
Probably this is what will end up happening anyway, but if we make it explicit in advance and tell everyone, then at least we'll all know that it's OK to stop refreshing our email constantly and redirect that energy in more useful directions.
What do you all think?
-n
-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
So, I'm fine with this, but FWIW I'm also fine with anything we come up with: I trust us, our intentions individually and in aggregate, and I can't imagine a poor outcome.
-Rob
On 19 July 2018 at 14:36, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
[tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate about the ground rules then that defeats the purpose. My proposal for a Minimum Viable Ground Rule: let's all agree not to finalize any governance decisions before October 1.]
On 07/18/2018 07:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
[tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate about the ground rules then that defeats the purpose. My proposal for a Minimum Viable Ground Rule: let's all agree not to finalize any governance decisions before October 1.]
+1
-- ~Ethan~
+1
-- Zach (On a phone)
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 21:54 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
On 07/18/2018 07:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
[tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate about the ground rules then that defeats the purpose. My proposal for a Minimum Viable Ground Rule: let's all agree not to finalize any governance decisions before October 1.]
+1
-- ~Ethan~
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/
FWIW, +1.
Alex
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:36 PM Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
[tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate about the ground rules then that defeats the purpose. My proposal for a Minimum Viable Ground Rule: let's all agree not to finalize any governance decisions before October 1.]
We're in a constitutional crisis, and that's scary. There's no map and none of us know what to expect. It feels like anything could happen. You look at the mailing list and see people making big proposals -- is one of them going to suddenly be adopted? If I look away for a few days, will I come back and find out that something's been decided? What are we even talking about? Do I need to jump into that thread RIGHT NOW? It's scary.
People don't do their best work when scared. When we're scared it's harder to listen and build up common ground with others -- but that's exactly what we'll need to do to get through this. And also, like... being scared sucks. I would prefer to be less scared.
So: can we do anything to make this less scary?
One thing that would help is if we had some ground-rules for how the decision itself will be made. Knowing what to expect makes things less scary. There's another thread going on right now trying to do that (subject "Proposal on how to vote"). But... if you look at that thread, it turns out deciding on how to vote is itself an important decision with lots of subtle issues, where we probably want to give people time to think, brainstorm, critique. Heck, in the end we might decide a vote isn't even the best approach. So I'm not saying we shouldn't be having that discussion, we definitely should, but... it's also giving me a new source of anxiety: that we'll all be so eager to get *some* certainty here that we'll end up trying to force a decision prematurely. Kind of a catch-22: the decision about how to make complex decisions is itself a complex decision, which is what we don't know how to do yet.
Is there some way to avoid this loop? Can we come up with some ground rules simple enough that we can agree on them without a big debate? Well, there's one thing I am pretty sure of: this is a big decision, there's a lot to think about and talk about, and that we won't regret taking some time some time to do that. And besides, trying to force it to happen faster will make people more scared and dig in their heels.
So here's my proposal for an initial, Minimum Viable Ground Rule: we should set a date and promise that no actual decisions will be finalized before that. Until then we are just talking and brainstorming and gradually converging on points of consensus. (And to be clear, the point of this is to give us breathing room, not set a deadline -- we shouldn't dawdle, but if we get there and it turns out we need more time, then that's OK.)
What would be a good date? The core sprint is coming up Sept. 10-14, and this seems to be a likely topic of conversation there. And then after the sprint, those who aren't present will need time to catch up with any discussions that happened at the sprint. So to make things concrete, I propose: no governance decisions finalized before October 1, 2018.
Probably this is what will end up happening anyway, but if we make it explicit in advance and tell everyone, then at least we'll all know that it's OK to stop refreshing our email constantly and redirect that energy in more useful directions.
What do you all think?
-n
-- 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 07/18/2018 08:45 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:>
On Jul 18, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
I propose: no governance decisions finalized before October 1, 2018.
+1 but it's okay and expected that discussions here will continue in the interim.
Absolutely! Without continuing discussion we'll have nothing to vote on come October! ;-)
-- ~Ethan~
+1
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 8:54 PM Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
On Jul 18, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
I propose: no governance decisions finalized before October 1, 2018.
+1 but it's okay and expected that discussions here will continue in
On 07/18/2018 08:45 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:> the interim.
Absolutely! Without continuing discussion we'll have nothing to vote on come October! ;-)
-- ~Ethan~
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/
I am in favor of a time limit. Yet, October 1 seems a bit too long for the initial governance decision (i.e. how to decide how to decide). My perspective, based on transitions in non-profits and the corporate world, is that the longer an organization let's it draw out then fear, uncertainty, and doubt creep in.
We have PEP 10 in place for a strawperson vote. It seems as good as anything to use to determine how to make a decision. Perhaps set a 30 day deadline to submit decision process recommendations. Then take a strawperson poll on each and at the core sprint create a time window for specific proposals on structure be submitted before October 1.
My concern if we leave how to decide until at least Oct 1 that the likelihood of completing this year is fairly low.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 9:15 PM Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 8:54 PM Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
On Jul 18, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
I propose: no governance decisions finalized before October 1, 2018.
+1 but it's okay and expected that discussions here will continue in
On 07/18/2018 08:45 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:> the interim.
Absolutely! Without continuing discussion we'll have nothing to vote on come October! ;-)
-- ~Ethan~
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/
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 07/18/2018 09:40 PM, Carol Willing wrote:
I am in favor of a time limit. Yet, October 1 seems a bit too long for the initial governance decision (i.e. how to decide how to decide). My perspective, based on transitions in non-profits and the corporate world, is that the longer an organization let's it draw out then fear, uncertainty, and doubt creep in.
We have PEP 10 in place for a strawperson vote. It seems as good as anything to use to determine how to make a decision. Perhaps set a 30 day deadline to submit decision process recommendations. Then take a strawperson poll on each and at the core sprint create a time window for specific proposals on structure be submitted before October 1.
My concern if we leave how to decide until at least Oct 1 that the likelihood of completing this year is fairly low.
My understanding is that, between now and Oct 1, we'll all get our proposals together for both how to decide, and what to decide. Then we have the first vote to decide how to decide, then maybe a week or two later we use that mechanism to decide on a governance model.
-- ~Ethan~
Thanks Ethan for clarifying. Totally cool if that is the case.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:19 PM Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
I am in favor of a time limit. Yet, October 1 seems a bit too long for
decide how to decide). My perspective, based on transitions in non-profits and the corporate world, is that the longer an organization let's it draw out then fear, uncertainty, and doubt creep in.
We have PEP 10 in place for a strawperson vote. It seems as good as anything to use to determine how to make a decision. Perhaps set a 30 day deadline to submit decision process recommendations. Then take a strawperson poll on each and at the core sprint create a time window for specific proposals on structure be submitted before October 1.
My concern if we leave how to decide until at least Oct 1 that the
On 07/18/2018 09:40 PM, Carol Willing wrote: the initial governance decision (i.e. how to likelihood of completing this year is fairly low.
My understanding is that, between now and Oct 1, we'll all get our proposals together for both how to decide, and what to decide. Then we have the first vote to decide how to decide, then maybe a week or two later we use that mechanism to decide on a governance model.
-- ~Ethan~
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 Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 22:32 Carol Willing, <willingc@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Ethan for clarifying. Totally cool if that is the case.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:19 PM Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
I am in favor of a time limit. Yet, October 1 seems a bit too long for
decide how to decide). My perspective, based on transitions in non-profits and the corporate world, is that the longer an organization let's it draw out then fear, uncertainty, and doubt creep in.
We have PEP 10 in place for a strawperson vote. It seems as good as anything to use to determine how to make a decision. Perhaps set a 30 day deadline to submit decision process recommendations. Then take a strawperson poll on each and at the core sprint create a time window for specific proposals on structure be submitted before October 1.
My concern if we leave how to decide until at least Oct 1 that the
On 07/18/2018 09:40 PM, Carol Willing wrote: the initial governance decision (i.e. how to likelihood of completing this year is fairly low.
My understanding is that, between now and Oct 1, we'll all get our proposals together for both how to decide, and what to decide. Then we have the first vote to decide how to decide, then maybe a week or two later we use that mechanism to decide on a governance model.
I had Carol's same worry that while it's great to have a "no sooner than" date, we also can't let this drag on and we have no "settle by" date, else we risk losing the faith of the community in our ability to come together and make decisions (e.g. if I heard it took a year for a project to resolve this then I would think there was some major divisiveness on the team).
So could we go with Nathaniel's idea of no decision before October, but any proposals to be ready by then as well as Ethan suggested?
I would also propose we have a goal of at least choosing the governance model by the end of the year (and a stretch goal to even have people placed into created positions by then as well). I have no problem with sooner, but I think it might be good to try to put _some_ upper bound on this.
-Brett
-- ~Ethan~
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/
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 Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:59 AM Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
I had Carol's same worry that while it's great to have a "no sooner than" date, we also can't let this drag on and we have no "settle by" date, else we risk losing the faith of the community in our ability to come together and make decisions (e.g. if I heard it took a year for a project to resolve this then I would think there was some major divisiveness on the team).
So could we go with Nathaniel's idea of no decision before October, but any proposals to be ready by then as well as Ethan suggested?
I would also propose we have a goal of at least choosing the governance model by the end of the year (and a stretch goal to even have people placed into created positions by then as well). I have no problem with sooner, but I think it might be good to try to put _some_ upper bound on this.
-Brett
Sounds good. So what about the following timelines: Oct 1: Deadline for people to come up with proposals of governance model, candidates, and how to vote Dec 1: Deadline to choose a governance model, (and if possible, we choose the new leader(s) too) Jan 1: Deadline to choose the new leader(s), if not already chosen by Dec 1.
?
On 7/19/2018 1:10 PM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:59 AM Brett Cannon <brett@python.org <mailto:brett@python.org>> wrote:
I had Carol's same worry that while it's great to have a "no sooner than" date, we also can't let this drag on and we have no "settle by" date, else we risk losing the faith of the community in our ability to come together and make decisions (e.g. if I heard it took a year for a project to resolve this then I would think there was some major divisiveness on the team). So could we go with Nathaniel's idea of no decision before October, but any proposals to be ready by then as well as Ethan suggested? I would also propose we have a goal of at least choosing the governance model by the end of the year (and a stretch goal to even have people placed into created positions by then as well). I have no problem with sooner, but I think it might be good to try to put _some_ upper bound on this. -BrettSounds good. So what about the following timelines: Oct 1: Deadline for people to come up with proposals of governance model, candidates, and how to vote Dec 1: Deadline to choose a governance model, (and if possible, we choose the new leader(s) too)
Why not Nov 1, leaving a month to decide on proposals?
Jan 1: Deadline to choose the new leader(s), if not already chosen by Dec 1.
On Jul 19, 2018, at 10:19, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
On 7/19/2018 1:10 PM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 8:59 AM Brett Cannon <brett@python.org <mailto:brett@python.org>> wrote: So what about the following timelines: Oct 1: Deadline for people to come up with proposals of governance model, candidates, and how to vote Dec 1: Deadline to choose a governance model, (and if possible, we choose the new leader(s) too)
Why not Nov 1, leaving a month to decide on proposals?
Jan 1: Deadline to choose the new leader(s), if not already chosen by Dec 1.
I like the Nov 1 schedule. I’m +1 with giving plenty of time to process, but I share the concern about letting things drag on too long.
IMHO, ideally we’d have the new governance structure and its office holders in place by EOY18. That has to account for various holidays, including Thanksgiving in the US and Christmas to New Years.
Cheers, -Barry
Would it be possible to have all proposals:
- How to determine the governance structure (PEP 10 or other approval process)
- The suggested governance structure
submitted by AOE August 31, 2018?
That would give everyone 40ish days to get their proposals in for either topic.
That would give everyone a full 30 day review period before the emerging October 1 decision moratorium.
Perhaps we can post the timeline as an informational PEP by the end of July.
Suggested timeline:
July 31 AOE - Informational PEP on this timeline or emails to python-committers, python-dev as a less formal notification of timeline
August 31 AOE - Submissions due for proposals on governance decision making and governance structure. Proposals should be posted as PRs on either the PEP repo or a TBD repo.
Sept 1 - 30 Review period for all submissions by committers and community.
Oct 1 - Earliest possible decision on any proposals (perhaps a strawperson poll begins on Oct 1 and ends by Oct 7, if needed re: PEP 10, on all decision making proposals.
Oct 15 - 21 Strawperson poll on all governance structures, if needed.
Nov 15 - Target date for formalizing names to roles
I'm happy to write up the Information PEP for the timeline or draft an email message.
In addition, I am happy to assist in editing any proposals that folks wish to submit.
On Jul 19, 2018, at 8:59 AM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org <mailto:brett@python.org>> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 22:32 Carol Willing, <willingc@gmail.com <mailto:willingc@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Ethan for clarifying. Totally cool if that is the case.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:19 PM Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us <mailto:ethan@stoneleaf.us>> wrote: On 07/18/2018 09:40 PM, Carol Willing wrote:
I am in favor of a time limit. Yet, October 1 seems a bit too long for the initial governance decision (i.e. how to decide how to decide). My perspective, based on transitions in non-profits and the corporate world, is that the longer an organization let's it draw out then fear, uncertainty, and doubt creep in.
We have PEP 10 in place for a strawperson vote. It seems as good as anything to use to determine how to make a decision. Perhaps set a 30 day deadline to submit decision process recommendations. Then take a strawperson poll on each and at the core sprint create a time window for specific proposals on structure be submitted before October 1.
My concern if we leave how to decide until at least Oct 1 that the likelihood of completing this year is fairly low.
My understanding is that, between now and Oct 1, we'll all get our proposals together for both how to decide, and what to decide. Then we have the first vote to decide how to decide, then maybe a week or two later we use that mechanism to decide on a governance model.
I had Carol's same worry that while it's great to have a "no sooner than" date, we also can't let this drag on and we have no "settle by" date, else we risk losing the faith of the community in our ability to come together and make decisions (e.g. if I heard it took a year for a project to resolve this then I would think there was some major divisiveness on the team).
So could we go with Nathaniel's idea of no decision before October, but any proposals to be ready by then as well as Ethan suggested?
I would also propose we have a goal of at least choosing the governance model by the end of the year (and a stretch goal to even have people placed into created positions by then as well). I have no problem with sooner, but I think it might be good to try to put _some_ upper bound on this.
-Brett
-- ~Ethan~
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org <mailto:python-committers@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ <https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/>
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org <mailto:python-committers@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ <https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/>
Le 19/07/2018 à 19:26, Carol Willing a écrit :
Would it be possible to have all proposals:
- How to determine the governance structure (PEP 10 or other approval process)
- The suggested governance structure
submitted by AOE August 31, 2018?
That would give everyone 40ish days to get their proposals in for either topic.
Much too short IMHO. We are all volunteers, plus July-August is often an extended leave (holiday) period in European countries (not for me, but I imagine for other people perhaps).
This is a serious decision to take, I don't think we gain anything in hasting things. Plus we are talking about a situation that seems to have taken everyone by surprise, given what I can read of the various e-mails.
Let's let people think and elaborate at a calm pace.
Regards
Antoine.
I appreciate and respect the importance of these decisions. The dates that I suggested, and I am not anchored to any of them, were not selected to rush or be hasty. Instead, it was respect for our time together (at least some of us) at the September sprint and to have all proposals on the table by that time.
You make a good point about European holidays. I am not opposed to delaying a couple of weeks (due date for proposals by the September sprint start).
My biggest concern is that dragging this on into the new year will result in more bikeshedding, more uncertainty, and less confidence in the developer community decision making ability.
Hoping we can compromise on a happy medium on a timeline.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 10:36 AM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Le 19/07/2018 à 19:26, Carol Willing a écrit :
Would it be possible to have all proposals:
- How to determine the governance structure (PEP 10 or other approval process)
- The suggested governance structure
submitted by AOE August 31, 2018?
That would give everyone 40ish days to get their proposals in for either topic.
Much too short IMHO. We are all volunteers, plus July-August is often an extended leave (holiday) period in European countries (not for me, but I imagine for other people perhaps).
This is a serious decision to take, I don't think we gain anything in hasting things. Plus we are talking about a situation that seems to have taken everyone by surprise, given what I can read of the various e-mails.
Let's let people think and elaborate at a calm pace.
Regards
Antoine.
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/
Le 19/07/2018 à 20:00, Carol Willing a écrit :
I appreciate and respect the importance of these decisions. The dates that I suggested, and I am not anchored to any of them, were not selected to rush or be hasty. Instead, it was respect for our time together (at least some of us) at the September sprint and to have all proposals on the table by that time.
I hadn't thought about the September sprint. I'd say it's up to people to discuss those things there if they want or not (I would prefer if we could avoid discussions in select groups like that, but I don't think there's any reasonable way to prevent it).
My biggest concern is that dragging this on into the new year will result in more bikeshedding, more uncertainty, and less confidence in the developer community decision making ability.
That's a fair point. But there's also an opposite concern that discussions may be deterred or cut short by a too tight deadline. Even simple and uncontentious PEPs take time to write, discuss and finalize.
Regards
Antoine.
Hoping we can compromise on a happy medium on a timeline.
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 10:36 AM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org <mailto:antoine@python.org>> wrote:
Le 19/07/2018 à 19:26, Carol Willing a écrit : > Would it be possible to have all proposals: > > - How to determine the governance structure (PEP 10 or other approval > process) > - The suggested governance structure > > submitted by AOE August 31, 2018? > > That would give everyone 40ish days to get their proposals in for either > topic. Much too short IMHO. We are all volunteers, plus July-August is often an extended leave (holiday) period in European countries (not for me, but I imagine for other people perhaps). This is a serious decision to take, I don't think we gain anything in hasting things. Plus we are talking about a situation that seems to have taken everyone by surprise, given what I can read of the various e-mails. Let's let people think and elaborate at a calm pace. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org <mailto:python-committers@python.org> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Excerpts from Antoine Pitrou's message of 2018-07-19 20:07:41 +0200:
Le 19/07/2018 à 20:00, Carol Willing a écrit :
I appreciate and respect the importance of these decisions. The dates that I suggested, and I am not anchored to any of them, were not selected to rush or be hasty. Instead, it was respect for our time together (at least some of us) at the September sprint and to have all proposals on the table by that time.
I hadn't thought about the September sprint. I'd say it's up to people to discuss those things there if they want or not (I would prefer if we could avoid discussions in select groups like that, but I don't think there's any reasonable way to prevent it).
The best way to mitigate it is to agree that select groups who happen to be able to meet in person won't make any final decisions, and that any discussions they have that start to trend toward agreement will be summarized to the mailing list so that the folks not able to be present can benefit from and participate in the discussion.
My biggest concern is that dragging this on into the new year will result in more bikeshedding, more uncertainty, and less confidence in the developer community decision making ability.
That's a fair point. But there's also an opposite concern that discussions may be deterred or cut short by a too tight deadline. Even simple and uncontentious PEPs take time to write, discuss and finalize.
Maybe it would be better to focus on a first date for submitting proposals and then wait to set the rest of the deadlines until after we have a bit more of the discussion behind us. That will give us a sense for how much consensus there is and how much more discussion might be needed.
Doug
On Jul 19, 2018, at 11:52 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Antoine Pitrou's message of 2018-07-19 20:07:41 +0200:
Le 19/07/2018 à 20:00, Carol Willing a écrit :
I appreciate and respect the importance of these decisions. The dates that I suggested, and I am not anchored to any of them, were not selected to rush or be hasty. Instead, it was respect for our time together (at least some of us) at the September sprint and to have all proposals on the table by that time.
I hadn't thought about the September sprint. I'd say it's up to people to discuss those things there if they want or not (I would prefer if we could avoid discussions in select groups like that, but I don't think there's any reasonable way to prevent it).
The best way to mitigate it is to agree that select groups who happen to be able to meet in person won't make any final decisions, and that any discussions they have that start to trend toward agreement will be summarized to the mailing list so that the folks not able to be present can benefit from and participate in the discussion.
Excellent suggestion. Reporting to the mailing list, python-committers and python-dev, would be the courteous and productive thing to do.
My biggest concern is that dragging this on into the new year will result in more bikeshedding, more uncertainty, and less confidence in the developer community decision making ability.
That's a fair point. But there's also an opposite concern that discussions may be deterred or cut short by a too tight deadline. Even simple and uncontentious PEPs take time to write, discuss and finalize.
Maybe it would be better to focus on a first date for submitting proposals and then wait to set the rest of the deadlines until after we have a bit more of the discussion behind us. That will give us a sense for how much consensus there is and how much more discussion might be needed.
This suggestion seems to balance well the different perspectives.
Proposals due by Sept 9, 2018 AOE.
No formal decisions prior to October 1, 2018.
Doug
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/
Le 19/07/2018 à 21:35, Carol Willing a écrit :
My biggest concern is that dragging this on into the new year will result in more bikeshedding, more uncertainty, and less confidence in the developer community decision making ability.
That's a fair point. But there's also an opposite concern that discussions may be deterred or cut short by a too tight deadline. Even simple and uncontentious PEPs take time to write, discuss and finalize.
Maybe it would be better to focus on a first date for submitting proposals and then wait to set the rest of the deadlines until after we have a bit more of the discussion behind us. That will give us a sense for how much consensus there is and how much more discussion might be needed.
This suggestion seems to balance well the different perspectives.
Proposals due by Sept 9, 2018 AOE.
I still think it's too short. Imagine someone leaving in August. Besides catching up with work, the beginning of a new school year (if they have kids) and other things, they have only 9 days to contribute usefully.
This is not something we can mobilize for to try and compress the time span as much possible.
Regards
Antoine.
Please extend the deadline: next week, I will be at EuroPython (I don't think that I will have time to sit down and come up with something), and I'm (more or less) in holiday the whole month of August.
Victor
2018-07-19 21:43 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>:
Le 19/07/2018 à 21:35, Carol Willing a écrit :
My biggest concern is that dragging this on into the new year will result in more bikeshedding, more uncertainty, and less confidence in the developer community decision making ability.
That's a fair point. But there's also an opposite concern that discussions may be deterred or cut short by a too tight deadline. Even simple and uncontentious PEPs take time to write, discuss and finalize.
Maybe it would be better to focus on a first date for submitting proposals and then wait to set the rest of the deadlines until after we have a bit more of the discussion behind us. That will give us a sense for how much consensus there is and how much more discussion might be needed.
This suggestion seems to balance well the different perspectives.
Proposals due by Sept 9, 2018 AOE.
I still think it's too short. Imagine someone leaving in August. Besides catching up with work, the beginning of a new school year (if they have kids) and other things, they have only 9 days to contribute usefully.
This is not something we can mobilize for to try and compress the time span as much possible.
Regards
Antoine.
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 Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 14:59 Victor Stinner <vstinner@redhat.com> wrote:
Please extend the deadline: next week, I will be at EuroPython (I don't think that I will have time to sit down and come up with something), and I'm (more or less) in holiday the whole month of August.
The leading proposal of a deadline to get governance model proposals in and deciding on a voting procedure is October 1. Do you need more time than that? And if so how much are you asking for?
-Brett
Victor
2018-07-19 21:43 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org>:
Le 19/07/2018 à 21:35, Carol Willing a écrit :
My biggest concern is that dragging this on into the new year will result in more bikeshedding, more uncertainty, and less confidence in the developer community decision making ability.
That's a fair point. But there's also an opposite concern that discussions may be deterred or cut short by a too tight deadline.
Even
simple and uncontentious PEPs take time to write, discuss and finalize.
Maybe it would be better to focus on a first date for submitting proposals and then wait to set the rest of the deadlines until after we have a bit more of the discussion behind us. That will give us a sense for how much consensus there is and how much more discussion might be needed.
This suggestion seems to balance well the different perspectives.
Proposals due by Sept 9, 2018 AOE.
I still think it's too short. Imagine someone leaving in August. Besides catching up with work, the beginning of a new school year (if they have kids) and other things, they have only 9 days to contribute usefully.
This is not something we can mobilize for to try and compress the time span as much possible.
Regards
Antoine.
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/
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/
2018-07-20 22:42 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon <brett@python.org>:
The leading proposal of a deadline to get governance model proposals in and deciding on a voting procedure is October 1. Do you need more time than that? And if so how much are you asking for?
Carol wrote "Proposals due by Sept 9, 2018 AOE". I'm fine with October 1.
Victor
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 15:23 Victor Stinner <vstinner@redhat.com> wrote:
2018-07-20 22:42 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon <brett@python.org>:
The leading proposal of a deadline to get governance model proposals in and deciding on a voting procedure is October 1. Do you need more time than that? And if so how much are you asking for?
Carol wrote "Proposals due by Sept 9, 2018 AOE".
Yep, and most people disagreed. :) Mariatta's timeline seems to be what people like.
I'm fine with October 1.
Great!
As quick refresher, my proposed timeline is:
Oct 1: Deadline for people to come up with proposals of governance model, candidates, and how to vote Dec 1: Deadline to choose a governance model, (and if possible, we choose the new leader(s) too) Jan 1: Deadline to choose the new leader(s), if not already chosen by Dec 1.
Mariatta
Thanks all. I am glad that Victor likes October 1. :-)
So can we formalize the timeline proposed by Mariatta?
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 5:58 PM Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya@gmail.com> wrote:
As quick refresher, my proposed timeline is:
Oct 1: Deadline for people to come up with proposals of governance model, candidates, and how to vote Dec 1: Deadline to choose a governance model, (and if possible, we choose the new leader(s) too) Jan 1: Deadline to choose the new leader(s), if not already chosen by Dec 1.
Mariatta
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 Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 16:25 Carol Willing <willingc@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks all. I am glad that Victor likes October 1. :-)
So can we formalize the timeline proposed by Mariatta?
Fine by me. Everyone who cares to comment seems to agree that Oct 1 is good and I think the Dec 1 deadline is very reasonable. We might need to re-evaluate the Jan 1 date as we get closer, but I don't think we need to worry about that right now.
-Brett
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 5:58 PM Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya@gmail.com> wrote:
As quick refresher, my proposed timeline is:
Oct 1: Deadline for people to come up with proposals of governance model, candidates, and how to vote Dec 1: Deadline to choose a governance model, (and if possible, we choose the new leader(s) too) Jan 1: Deadline to choose the new leader(s), if not already chosen by Dec 1.
Mariatta
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/
2018-07-21 0:58 GMT+02:00 Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya@gmail.com>:
Oct 1: Deadline for people to come up with proposals of governance model, candidates, and how to vote Dec 1: Deadline to choose a governance model, (and if possible, we choose the new leader(s) too)
What happens between October and December? People have 2 months to vote for their preferred governance? Why is the vote open for 2 months? Can't we vote in 2 weeks for example?
I guess that "Deadline" means that we are allowed to agree on something earlier :-) In that case, I'm fine with that.
Victor
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 17:05 Victor Stinner <vstinner@redhat.com> wrote:
2018-07-21 0:58 GMT+02:00 Mariatta Wijaya <mariatta.wijaya@gmail.com>:
Oct 1: Deadline for people to come up with proposals of governance model, candidates, and how to vote Dec 1: Deadline to choose a governance model, (and if possible, we choose the new leader(s) too)
What happens between October and December? People have 2 months to vote for their preferred governance?
Why is the vote open for 2 months?
I think the plan would be to discuss what goes on the ballot and figuring out who will vote (based on our decision by Oct 1), and then voting would be open for the month of November).
Can't we vote in 2 weeks for example?
Because others have been worried that a short amount of time to vote for such a serious thing, especially if people happen to not be available. Or put another way, people want enough lead time to be sure they are available to vote and know to look for a voter email if they happen to be travelling for all of November (just like you don't want us to make you write up your governance proposal in August ;) .
I guess that "Deadline" means that we are allowed to agree on something earlier :-) In that case, I'm fine with that.
Maybe. As I said, some people have asked for a large lead time to know when a vote will happen to make themselves available so I'm not sure how much we may be able to bring it up. It's possible, but I don't think it's guaranteed.
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 11:52 Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Antoine Pitrou's message of 2018-07-19 20:07:41 +0200:
Le 19/07/2018 à 20:00, Carol Willing a écrit :
I appreciate and respect the importance of these decisions. The dates that I suggested, and I am not anchored to any of them, were not selected to rush or be hasty. Instead, it was respect for our time together (at least some of us) at the September sprint and to have all proposals on the table by that time.
I hadn't thought about the September sprint. I'd say it's up to people to discuss those things there if they want or not (I would prefer if we could avoid discussions in select groups like that, but I don't think there's any reasonable way to prevent it).
The best way to mitigate it is to agree that select groups who happen to be able to meet in person won't make any final decisions, and that any discussions they have that start to trend toward agreement will be summarized to the mailing list so that the folks not able to be present can benefit from and participate in the discussion.
We already do that for the language summit and I don't think any consensus reached at the dev sprints would be any different. My gut says that if we haven't reached a consensus on how to handle voting by the dev sprints then we will try to reach one there to bring back to the list to see if team-wide consensus also exists for the voting proposal.
My biggest concern is that dragging this on into the new year will result in more bikeshedding, more uncertainty, and less confidence in the developer community decision making ability.
That's a fair point. But there's also an opposite concern that discussions may be deterred or cut short by a too tight deadline. Even simple and uncontentious PEPs take time to write, discuss and finalize.
Maybe it would be better to focus on a first date for submitting proposals and then wait to set the rest of the deadlines until after we have a bit more of the discussion behind us. That will give us a sense for how much consensus there is and how much more discussion might be needed.
But the amount of discussion can be unbounded (considering people write PhD theses on governance models and voting systems we could talk about this stuff forever ;), so putting a schedule in place to help focus the discussions can be beneficial.
I'm +1 on Mariatta's schedule. That gives people more than 2 months to come up with governance proposals and all of us to settle on how we will vote. And if we say the month of November will be when voting is open then that would give people more then 3 months notice of when the first vote will occur.
Excerpts from Brett Cannon's message of 2018-07-19 12:44:23 -0700:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 11:52 Doug Hellmann <doug@doughellmann.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Antoine Pitrou's message of 2018-07-19 20:07:41 +0200:
Le 19/07/2018 à 20:00, Carol Willing a écrit :
I appreciate and respect the importance of these decisions. The dates that I suggested, and I am not anchored to any of them, were not selected to rush or be hasty. Instead, it was respect for our time together (at least some of us) at the September sprint and to have all proposals on the table by that time.
I hadn't thought about the September sprint. I'd say it's up to people to discuss those things there if they want or not (I would prefer if we could avoid discussions in select groups like that, but I don't think there's any reasonable way to prevent it).
The best way to mitigate it is to agree that select groups who happen to be able to meet in person won't make any final decisions, and that any discussions they have that start to trend toward agreement will be summarized to the mailing list so that the folks not able to be present can benefit from and participate in the discussion.
We already do that for the language summit and I don't think any consensus reached at the dev sprints would be any different. My gut says that if we haven't reached a consensus on how to handle voting by the dev sprints then we will try to reach one there to bring back to the list to see if team-wide consensus also exists for the voting proposal.
That plan makes sense to me.
My biggest concern is that dragging this on into the new year will result in more bikeshedding, more uncertainty, and less confidence in the developer community decision making ability.
That's a fair point. But there's also an opposite concern that discussions may be deterred or cut short by a too tight deadline. Even simple and uncontentious PEPs take time to write, discuss and finalize.
Maybe it would be better to focus on a first date for submitting proposals and then wait to set the rest of the deadlines until after we have a bit more of the discussion behind us. That will give us a sense for how much consensus there is and how much more discussion might be needed.
But the amount of discussion can be unbounded (considering people write PhD theses on governance models and voting systems we could talk about this stuff forever ;), so putting a schedule in place to help focus the discussions can be beneficial.
Sure. I'm just suggesting not rushing to decide what that schedule should be. Maybe by the time all of the proposals are formally written up there will be a high enough level of consensus that it will be possible to move to a decision sooner than we expect right now.
Either way, I do think having a schedule will give folks enough space and time to consider the options carefully.
I'm +1 on Mariatta's schedule. That gives people more than 2 months to come up with governance proposals and all of us to settle on how we will vote. And if we say the month of November will be when voting is open then that would give people more then 3 months notice of when the first vote will occur.
On 19 July 2018 at 20:44, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
But the amount of discussion can be unbounded (considering people write PhD theses on governance models and voting systems we could talk about this stuff forever ;), so putting a schedule in place to help focus the discussions can be beneficial.
I'm +1 on Mariatta's schedule. That gives people more than 2 months to come up with governance proposals and all of us to settle on how we will vote. And if we say the month of November will be when voting is open then that would give people more then 3 months notice of when the first vote will occur.
As long as we understand that the deadline is intended to help focus discussion, and not to pressure a premature or rushed decision, I think Maraiatta's schedule is fine. If, coming up to that date, people feel the need for more discussion/review, it should be easy to extend the timescale. I'd like to think no-one is going to demand an extension simply to delay the process, and conversely I assume that if someone *does* ask for an extension, that request would be treated with respect and consideration.
So while I think a concrete timescale will help focus the discussion, I don't think it should be viewed as set in stone (otherwise we'll just have yet another debate on what precise dates we should choose!)
Paul
I’ll be a little disappointed to not have anything in place by the sprints, as most of my planned work was to get my PEPs accepted, but it seems we have a fairly sizable split within the group between the ~3 proposals so far (NBDFL, Council, delay), so under the circumstances I think it’s most fair to let those in the third group have time to think through. (I haven’t been counting or keeping track of names, but it seems like different people are +1-ing this thread than were doing it on the others.)
Consider this a +0.
Cheers, Steve
Top-posted from my Windows 10 phone
From: Nathaniel Smith Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2018 19:37 To: python-committers Subject: [python-committers] Proposal: an explicit,time-limited moratorium on finalizing any governance decisions
[tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate about the ground rules then that defeats the purpose. My proposal for a Minimum Viable Ground Rule: let's all agree not to finalize any governance decisions before October 1.]
We're in a constitutional crisis, and that's scary. There's no map and none of us know what to expect. It feels like anything could happen. You look at the mailing list and see people making big proposals -- is one of them going to suddenly be adopted? If I look away for a few days, will I come back and find out that something's been decided? What are we even talking about? Do I need to jump into that thread RIGHT NOW? It's scary.
People don't do their best work when scared. When we're scared it's harder to listen and build up common ground with others -- but that's exactly what we'll need to do to get through this. And also, like... being scared sucks. I would prefer to be less scared.
So: can we do anything to make this less scary?
One thing that would help is if we had some ground-rules for how the decision itself will be made. Knowing what to expect makes things less scary. There's another thread going on right now trying to do that (subject "Proposal on how to vote"). But... if you look at that thread, it turns out deciding on how to vote is itself an important decision with lots of subtle issues, where we probably want to give people time to think, brainstorm, critique. Heck, in the end we might decide a vote isn't even the best approach. So I'm not saying we shouldn't be having that discussion, we definitely should, but... it's also giving me a new source of anxiety: that we'll all be so eager to get *some* certainty here that we'll end up trying to force a decision prematurely. Kind of a catch-22: the decision about how to make complex decisions is itself a complex decision, which is what we don't know how to do yet.
Is there some way to avoid this loop? Can we come up with some ground rules simple enough that we can agree on them without a big debate? Well, there's one thing I am pretty sure of: this is a big decision, there's a lot to think about and talk about, and that we won't regret taking some time some time to do that. And besides, trying to force it to happen faster will make people more scared and dig in their heels.
So here's my proposal for an initial, Minimum Viable Ground Rule: we should set a date and promise that no actual decisions will be finalized before that. Until then we are just talking and brainstorming and gradually converging on points of consensus. (And to be clear, the point of this is to give us breathing room, not set a deadline -- we shouldn't dawdle, but if we get there and it turns out we need more time, then that's OK.)
What would be a good date? The core sprint is coming up Sept. 10-14, and this seems to be a likely topic of conversation there. And then after the sprint, those who aren't present will need time to catch up with any discussions that happened at the sprint. So to make things concrete, I propose: no governance decisions finalized before October 1, 2018.
Probably this is what will end up happening anyway, but if we make it explicit in advance and tell everyone, then at least we'll all know that it's OK to stop refreshing our email constantly and redirect that energy in more useful directions.
What do you all think?
-n
-- 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/
Le 19/07/2018 à 04:36, Nathaniel Smith a écrit :
[tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate about the ground rules then that defeats the purpose. My proposal for a Minimum Viable Ground Rule: let's all agree not to finalize any governance decisions before October 1.]
+1 from me. Thank you.
Regards
Antoine.
On 19 July 2018 at 08:33, Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Le 19/07/2018 à 04:36, Nathaniel Smith a écrit :
[tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate about the ground rules then that defeats the purpose. My proposal for a Minimum Viable Ground Rule: let's all agree not to finalize any governance decisions before October 1.]
+1 from me. Thank you.
+1 from me too. You make very good points (particularly regarding the "fear of something happening while I'm not watching" factor). Paul
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:36 AM Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
What would be a good date? The core sprint is coming up Sept. 10-14, and this seems to be a likely topic of conversation there. And then after the sprint, those who aren't present will need time to catch up with any discussions that happened at the sprint. So to make things concrete, I propose: no governance decisions finalized before October 1, 2018.
+1.
Yury
On 19/07/18 03:36, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
[tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate about the ground rules then that defeats the purpose. My proposal for a Minimum Viable Ground Rule: let's all agree not to finalize any governance decisions before October 1.]
+1
Cheers, Mark.
participants (18)
-
Alex Martelli -
Antoine Pitrou -
Barry Warsaw -
Brett Cannon -
Carol Willing -
Doug Hellmann -
Ethan Furman -
Mariatta Wijaya -
Mark Shannon -
Nathaniel Smith -
Paul Moore -
Robert Collins -
Steve Dower -
Terry Reedy -
Victor Stinner -
Yury Selivanov -
Zachary Ware -
Łukasz Langa