[v2,3/3] Significant changes to decision making; some new roles and minor changes

Message ID	1473697212-3245-4-git-send-email-lars.kurth@citrix.com (mailing list archive)
State	New, archived
Headers	show Return-Path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org> From: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com> To: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 17:20:12 +0100 Message-Id: <1473697212-3245-4-git-send-email-lars.kurth@citrix.com> In-Reply-To: <1473697212-3245-1-git-send-email-lars.kurth@citrix.com> References: <1473697212-3245-1-git-send-email-lars.kurth@citrix.com> Cc: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com>, committers@xenproject.org Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 3/3] Significant changes to decision making; some new roles and minor changes Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Sender: "Xen-devel" <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>

On 20/09/2016 18:01, "Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >Lars Kurth writes ("[PATCH v2 3/3] Significant changes to decision >making; some new roles and minor changes"): >> [proposal] > >Thanks. I've reviewed this and it looks generally good but I have >some specific comments. > > >Throughout you use "gage" where I think you should use "gauge". >(AFAICT from Wiktionary this is not a US/UK spelling thing.) Will fix. >> +Voting is conducted in line with the following rules: >> + >> +- Project leadership team members vote for (**+1**) or against >>(**-1**) a >> +resolution. There is no differentiation between **+1**/ **+2** and >> +**-1**/**-2**: in other words a **+2** is counted as a vote for, a >>**-2** as a >> +vote against the resolution. The number of votes for and against a >>resolution >> +is called **active vote**. **0** votes **are not counted** as an >>active vote. >> +- A **quorum of more than 50% of active votes** is required for a >>resolution >> +to pass. In other words, if the leadership team has 7 members, at >>least 4 >> +active votes are required for a resolution to pass. >> +- The resolution passes, if a 2/3 majority of active votes is in >>favour of >> +it. > >Quorums like this should count only positive votes. Otherwise someone >who opposes a proposal has to guess whether it is more likely to fail >quorum, or to fail the 2/3 majority. If it is likely to fail quorum, >they should refrain from voting. I think probably the term quorum is leading to some confusion here and should probably be changed. Basically what +- A **quorum of more than 50% of active votes** is required for a resolution +to pass. In other words, if the leadership team has 7 members, at least 4 +active votes are required for a resolution to pass. is trying to encode is a turnout threshold of >50% (discounting spoilt ballot papers: in other words a **0** votes would be the equivalent of a spoilt ballot paper). My thinking was that A) The rules would encourage team members to vote for or against a proposal, rather than abstain B) The minimum threshold is there to ensure that we don't have to manage disappearing leadership team members tightly and that decisions have enough legitimacy C) The 2/3 majority would only apply to the people that have voted for or against a proposal >For example with a team of 6, with two people having alread voted yes, >and the remaining three having expressly declined to vote because they >don't have an opinion, a leadership team member who votes "no" would >move the outcome from "quorum not met since only 2 out of 6 active >voters - fail" to "quorum met with 3 active voters, 2 votes in favour, >one against, 2/3 majority met - pass". This is wrong. With a team of 6, at least 4 people would need to vote "yes" or "no" to pass the 50% threshold. If more than "2" decline to vote, the threshold wont be achieved. Amongst the 4 votes, 3 would need to be in favour. But you are right, this does open the door to tactical voting in some boundary cases. So if there were 2 active "0" votes and 3 "+1" votes, the last voter could shoot down the proposal by voting "0". If the vote had been secret, that person would probably vote "-1" and the proposal would pass. The same applies, if we were close to the voting deadline and 3 people had voted "+1" and 2 had not. I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by "otherwise someone who opposes a proposal has to guess whether it is more likely to fail quorum, or to fail the 2/3 majority", but I guess it is what I outlined above. I suppose the whole issue would go away, if there was a secret vote. But introducing this, would be a bit heavyweight. >I suggest changing the quorum threshold to count only explicit >abstentions and votes in favour; either 1/3 or 50% would do. I am not suggesting this is a bad idea, but I don't think I fully understand what you mean and how your proposal avoids the issue above. >> -### Conflict Resolution >> + Let me express this as an algorithm. >> >> - >>------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>------------ >> - ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED LATER: >> - - Generalise refereeing in terms of Project Leadership instead of >>specific roles >> - - Also some examples for sPecific situations that have happened in >>the past may be >> - useful >> - >>------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>------------ >> + treshhold=2/3; > > threshold > >> + active='number of active members'; (7 for the Hypervisor >>project; IanC is inactive) > > ^ > at the time of >writing, 2016-09-20 > >> -#### Refereeing >> + One open question is what to do with 0-votes. We could introduce a >>rule discounting >> + 0 votes (let's call it 0-rule). If someone votes 0, we assume they >>really don't care >> + about the outcome and are considered inactive for the purpose of >>the vote. > >With my proposal you can delete this because 0-votes do not affect >quorum. > >> + The other question is whether to treat -2-votes different than >>-1-votes. We could >> + say there should not be more than 20% -2-votes. That would mean >>that > >No. Formal decisonmaking of this sort should not count some votes >double. This entire section was just an illustration of my thought process. >> + The entire last resource section goes, because it is essentially >>not needed any more, > ^^^^^^^^ > Resort ACK. Thanks. > >> +#### Committer, Security Team Member and other Project Leadership >>Elections >... >> - Nomination: Community members should nominate candidates by >>posting a >> proposal to *appointments at xenproject dot org* explaining the >>candidate's >> @@ -299,74 +606,123 @@ review all proposals, check whether the nominee >>would be willing to accept the >> nomination and publish suitable nominations on the project's public >>mailing >> list for wider community input. >> - Election: A committer will be elected using the decision making >>process >> -outlined earlier. Voting will be done by committers for that project >>privately >> -using a voting form that is created by the community manager. Should >>there be a >> -negative vote the project lead and community manager will try and >>resolve the >> -situation and reach consensus. Results will be published on the public >>mailing >> -list. >> +outlined earlier. In other words, the decision is delegated to the >>[project >> +leadership team](#leadership). > >This misses out appointments to the security team. I suggest that >they should usually be made by the team itself according to lazy >consensus. Agreed. Will add. >> + >>------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>---------------- >> + **Proposal** **Who reviews?** **Who >>votes?** >> + ----------------------------- ----------------------------- >>----------------------------- >> + Creating, graduating, Members of developer mailing >>Leadership teams of >> + completing/archiving of lists of qualifying projects >>**mature** sub-projects, >> + sub-projects with the >>exception of the >> + project >>which is being >> + reviewed >>(e.g. for an >> + >>archivation review, the >> + >>leadership team of the >> + project >>under review, cannot >> + vote). >> + >> + Global Process Changes Members of developer mailing >>Leadership teams of >> + lists of qualifying projects >>**mature** sub-projects, >> + within >>the scope described >> + above. > >> +- Project leadership team members vote for or against a proposal >>(there is no >> +differentiation between **-1**/**-2** and **+1**/**+2**). A **0** vote >>is not >> +counted as a valid vote. >> +- A **quorum of more than 50%** of each project's leadership team >>members is >> +required. In other words: if more than half of a project's leadership >>team >> +members do not vote or abstain, the entire sub-project's vote is not >>counted. >> +This avoids situations where only a minority of leadership team >>members votes, >> +which would skew the overall result. If it becomes clear, that a >>sub-project is >> +not likely to meet the quorum, the voting deadline can be extended by >>the >> +communiuty manager. For myself: community >> +- For each qualifying project with a quorum, the percentage of votes >>in >> +favour and against is calculated (e.g. if 5 people voted in favour, 2 >>against >> +and 1 abstains, the share is 5/7th and 2/7th respectively). >> +- Votes in favour are averaged as percentages across all projects >>(say we >> +have per project figures of 50%, 80%, 70% in favour, then the total >>vote in >> +favour is 66.67%). >> +- If the total vote is more than 2/3rds in favour, the proposal >>passes. >> +Otherwise it fails. > >This is a rather complex approach but I don't have a clearly better >proposal. I know. I have been thinking about this for ages and couldn't come up with something better. We may have to change the 50% quorum to be in line with your proposal or to improve the language. Lars

diff --git a/governance.pandoc b/governance.pandoc index 86e4433..04a1dc6 100644 --- a/governance.pandoc +++ b/governance.pandoc @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ - This document has come in effect in June 2011 and will be reviewed periodically -(see revision sections). The last modification has been made in July 2016. +(see revision sections). The last modification has been made in September 2016. Content ------- @@ -12,8 +11,10 @@ Content - [Making Contributions](#contributions) - [Decision Making, Conflict Resolution, Role Nominations and Elections](#decisions) -- [Formal Votes](#formal-votes) +- [Project Wide Decision Making](#project-decisions) +- [Community Decisions with Funding and Legal Implications](#funding-and-legal) - [Project Governance](#project-governance) +- [Per Sub-Project Governance Specialisations](#specialisations) Goals {#goals} ----- @@ -55,23 +56,13 @@ The Xen Project is a meritocracy. The more you contribute the more responsibility you will earn. Leadership roles in Xen are also merit-based and earned by peer acclaim. - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - I moved the "Roles" section up and split it into two sections with unmodified content - - Xen Project Wide Roles - - Project Team Roles - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +### Local Decision Making -Xen Project Wide Roles {#roles-global} +The Xen Project consists of a number of sub-projects: each sub-project makes +technical and other decisions that solely affect it locally. + +Xen Project Wide Roles {#roles-global} ---------------------- - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - MINOR ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED LATER: - - Sub-projects and Teams would benefit from some forward references to highlight the - difference between incubation mature projects. - - Also we should clarify what assets a sub-project owns. - - Add the role of Community Manager as it used throughout the document - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Sub-projects and Teams @@ -80,9 +71,22 @@ the [Project Governance](#project-governance) (or Project Lifecycle) as outlined in this document. Sub-projects (sometimes simply referred to as projects) are run by individuals and are often referred to as teams to highlight the collaborative nature of development. For example, each -sub-project has a [team portal](/developers/teams.html) on Xenproject.org. +sub-project has a [team portal](/developers/teams.html) on Xenproject.org. +Sub-projects own and are responsible for a collection of source repositories +and other resources (e.g. test infrastructure, CI infrastructure, ...), which +we call **sub-project assets** (or team assets) in this document. -### Xen Project Advisory Board +Sub-projects can either be **incubation projects** or **mature projects** as +outlined in [Basic Project Life Cycle](#project-governance). In line with the +meritocratic principle, mature projects have more influence than incubation +projects, on [project wide decisions](#project-decisions). + +### Community Manager + +The Xen Project has a community manager, whose primary role it is to support +the entire Xen Project Community. + +### Xen Project Advisory Board {#roles-ab} The [Xen Project Advisory Board](/join.html) consists of members who are committed to steering the project to advance its market and technical success, @@ -92,7 +96,7 @@ shared project infrastructure, marketing and events, and managing the Xen Project trademark. The Advisory Board leaves all technical decisions to the open source meritocracy. -### The Linux Foundation +### The Linux Foundation {#roles-lf} The Xen Project is a [Linux Foundation](/linux-foundation.html) Collaborative Project. Collaborative Projects are independently funded software projects that @@ -111,30 +115,60 @@ members or other distinguished community members. ### Sponsor To form a new sub-project or team on Xenproject.org, we require a sponsor to -support the creation of the new project. A sponsor can be a project lead or -committer of a mature project, a member of the advisory board or the community -manager. This ensures that a distinguished community member supports the idea -behind the project. +support the creation of the new project. A sponsor can be a member of the +project leadership team of a mature project, a member of the advisory board or +the community manager. This ensures that a distinguished community member +supports the idea behind the project. Project Team Roles {#roles-local} ------------------ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED LATER: - - Fix minor Inaccuracies and Improvements - - Allow for customization of roles by sub-projects (but this definition is the default) - - Allow for Security Response Team - - Allow for sub-projects to be lead by a Project Leadership Team (which may include a - Project Lead) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +Sub-projects or teams are driven by the people who volunteer for the job. This +functions well for most cases. This section lists the main roles which projects +use. This section lists the default roles, which are based on how the +Hypervisor project operates. Sub-projects can deviate from the default, but are +required to document deviations from the default and link to it from this +[document](#specialisations). The only exception is that each project is +required to have a project leadership team, as without it, the project will not +be able to function. + +The following table lists how each project uses these roles. Note that +**incubation projects** have more flexibility in experimenting with roles that +work for them, but need to define specialistions before they can **mature**. + + --------------------- ------------ ----------------- ---------------- ------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- + **Project** **Mature** **Maintainers** **Committers** **Security Team** **Leadership Team** + **Hypervisor** YES YES YES YES Committers and Release Manager, without a Project Lead + **Windows Drivers** NO YES YES NO Committers, with a Project Lead + **XAPI** YES YES YES NO Committers, with a Project Lead + --------------------- ------------ ----------------- ---------------- ------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- + ### Maintainers -Maintainers own one or several components in the Xen tree. A maintainer reviews -and approves changes that affect their components. It is a maintainer's prime -responsibility to review, comment on, co-ordinate and accept patches from other -community member's and to maintain the design cohesion of their components. -Maintainers are listed in a MAINTAINERS file in the root of the source tree. +Maintainers own one or several components in the sub-projects source tree(s). A +maintainer reviews and approves changes that affect their components. It is a +maintainer's prime responsibility to review, comment on, co-ordinate and accept +patches from other community member's and to maintain the design cohesion of +their components. Maintainers are listed in a MAINTAINERS file in the root of +each code repository that the project owns. + +Larger sub-projects such as the Hypervisor may have special maintainer roles +such as a release manager and stable branch maintainers. In addition, larger +projects may award different maintainers different levels of influence. Any +specialisations and implications are documented in the respective MAINTAINERS +file. + + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + CONSISTENCY ISSUES that probably ought to be cleaned up at some point + - The xen.git MAINTAINERS file does not list our release managers and + stable branch maintainers + - We do have a number of repos without MAINTAINERS files, e.g. mini-os.git, + osstest.git + - For projects with many repositories (e.g. XAPI and Mirage OS), using MAINTAINERS + files is not very practical. XAPI seems to sometimes use MAINTAINERS and README + files at other times. We may need a more central place to state roles. + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Committers @@ -144,22 +178,41 @@ applies changes that have been approved by the respective maintainer(s) to the source tree. Due to their status in the community, committers can also act as referees should disagreements amongst maintainers arise. Committers are listed on the sub-project's team portal (e.g. [Hypervisor team -portal](/developers/teams/hypervisor.html)). +portal](/developers/teams/hypervisor.html)) and/or in the projects MAINTAINERS +files. + +### Security Response Team + +Each sub-project may have a security response team, that is responsible for +receiving, reviewing, and responding to security incident reports for the +sub-projects assets according to its security response process (e.g. +[Hypervisor Security Problem Response Process](/security-policy.html)). -### Project Lead +### Project Leadership Team and Project Lead -Sub-projects and teams hosted on Xenproject.org are managed by a Project Lead, -who also is a committer of the sub-project/team he/she leads. Project Leads are -the public figurehead of the project and is responsible for the health of the -project. Due to their status in the community, project leads can also act as -referees should disagreements amongst committers of the project arise. The -project lead typically also has write access to resources, such as the web page -of a specific project. +Sub-projects and teams hosted on Xenproject.org are managed by a Project +Leadership Team. The leadership team is made up of distinguished community +members, but the exact composition may depend on the sub-project. For example, +in the case of the Hypervisor sub-project, all committers and the release +manager, are part of the leadership team. The leadership team owns the +sub-projects processes, the overall architecture and all assets within the +project and makes [sub-project wide decisions](#decisions) on behalf of its +community. + +A sub-projects leadership team members are listed on the sub-project's team +portal (e.g. [Hypervisor team portal](developers/teams/hypervisor.html)). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Moved this section + CONSISTENCY ISSUES that probably ought to be cleaned up at some point + - XAPI and Mirage OS ought to decide who their leadership team is + (I made some assumptions for now) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +The Leadership Team may elect a Project Lead who is also a member of the +Leadership Team. Project Leads are the public figurehead of the project and are +responsible for the health of the project. Project Leads can also act as +[referees](#conflict) should the Project Leadership Team become paralysed. + Making Contributions {#contributions} -------------------- @@ -175,102 +228,356 @@ More information on making contributions can be found in the following documents: - [Contribution Guidelines](/help/contribution-guidelines.html) - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Consolidated all Decision Making Related topics into one section - - I changed the order of the sections from ... - "Consensus Decision Making, Conflict Resolution, Elections and Formal Votes" to - "Consensus Decision Making, Formal Votes, Conflict Resolution, Elections" - - I changed header titles and fixed the headline - - Otherwise the relevant sections remain identical, with the exception of comment - sections that I added, which highlight issues that are to be addressed. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +- [Review Then Commit Policy](#RTC) Decision Making, Conflict Resolution, Role Nominations and Elections {#decisions} -------------------------------------------------------------------- +Sub-projects or teams hosted on Xenproject.org are normally auto-governing and +driven by the people who volunteer for the job. This functions well for most +cases. This section lists the main mechanisms by which projects make decisions. +This section lists the default mode of operation, which is based on how the +Hypervisor project operates. Sub-projects can deviate from the default, but are +required to document deviations from the default and link to it from this +[document](#specialisation). The only exception is that each project is +required to adhere to the **Review Then Commit Policy**, **Leadership Team +Decisions** and **Conflict Resolution**. + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED LATER: - - Add a pre-amble explaining the different decision making mechanisms and when they - apply - - Add a section about review and commit, which is the primary means of making - code related decisions + TODO, after this section is agreed, or mostly agreed + - Add a table of the projects that states who adheres to the default + - I believe that the Hypervisor, winPV and XAPI are likely to adhere to this section ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -### Consensus Decision Making +### Review Then Commit {#RTC} + +The vast majority of technical decisions within the Xen Project are code +related decisions (e.g. patches and design documents), which determine whether +a specific change can be accepted into the code base. The default decision +making process is a review and commit process, which requires that all changes +receive explicit approval from respective code owners (maintainers) before they +are committed. The exact workflow and details of this policy between +sub-projects may differ and are documented in one or several of the following +places: MAINTAINERS/README/CONTRIBUTING files in repositories and/or the +sub-project team portal. + +### Expressing Agreement and Disagreement {#expressingopinion} + + +Within the community, we follow the following number notation to explicitly +express opinions on proposals, formal or informal votes. + +- **+2** : I am happy with this proposal, and I will argue for it +- **+1** : I am happy with this proposal, but will not argue for it +- **0** : I have no opinion +- **-1** : I am not happy with this proposal, but will not argue against it +- **-2** : I am not happy with this proposal, and I will argue against it + +A **-2** should include an alternative proposal or a detailed explanation of +the reasons for the negative opinion. A **+2** should include reasons for the +positive opinion. + +How we tally results and their implications depend on the context in which is +is used and are marked with Passed/Failed: in one of the following sections: + +- [Lazy Consensus / Lazy Voting](#lazyconsensus) +- [Leadership Team Decisions](#leadership) +- [Project Wide Decision Making](#project-decisions) + +### Lazy Consensus / Lazy Voting {#lazyconsensus} + +Lazy Consensus is a useful technique to make decisions for specific proposals +which are not covered by the Review Then Commit Policy or do not require a more +formal decision (see below). Lazy Consensus is extremely useful, when you don't +anticipate any objections, or to gage whether there are objections to a +proposal. The concrete process in this section is a mixture between Lazy Consensus +and Lazy Voting and is designed to avoid unnecessary multiple stages in decision +making. + +To make use of it, post something like the following on the project's +mailing list (or some other communication channel): + + > I am assuming we are agreed on X and am going to assume lazy consensus: < + > if there are no objections within the next seven days. < + +You should however ensure that all relevant stake-holders which may object are +explicitly CC'ed, such as relevant maintainers or committers, ensure that +**lazy consensus** is in the body of your message (this helps set up mail +filters) and choose a reasonable time-frame. If it is unclear who the relevant +stake-holders are, the project leadership can nominate a group of stake-holders +to decide, or may choose to own the decision collectively and resolve it. + +Objections by stake-holders should be expressed using the [conventions +above](#expressingopinion) to make disagreements easily identifiable. + +__Passed/Failed:__ +The proposer of Lazy Consensus decision is assumed to implicitly have an +opinion of **+1**, unless otherwise stated. + +- Failed: A single **-2** by a stake-holder whose approval is necessary +- Failed: A total sum of opinions **<=0** +- Passed: A total sum of opinions **>0** + +It can only be overturned if the project leadership agrees collectively, that +the decision is too important to be settled by lazy consensus / lazy voting. +In situations where a proposal is failed, an alternative solution needs to be +found, or if a decision is formally challenged, [conflict resolution mechanisms](#conflict) may need to be used to resolve the situation. + +__Further Examples:__ +A Lazy Consensus decision starts out with the implicit **+1** opinion of the +proposer. If there is no explicit response, the proposal passes as the sum +is **>0**. + +If there is a single **-1** without any **+** votes, the proposal fails. + +If there are multiple **+1**'s or **+2**'s, more **-1**'s than positive votes +are needed for the proposal to fail. This mechanism, is often also called +**Lazy Voting**. + +The process does allow for a proposer to state a starting opinion of **0** or +**-1**. In this case, the Lazy Consensus label does not work for the process, +as positive opinions are needed for the proposal to pass. To make use of this +mechanism, post something like the following on the project's mailing list +(or some other communication channel) + + > I want to solicit opinions on X and am going to assume lazy voting: < + > My starting position is **0**, as I feel that at least one other < + > stake-holder should agree with the proposal. < + > If there is a majority in favour, without a **-2** objection within the < + > next seven days, I assume that the proposal holds and does not need < + > require further discussion. < + +Unlike in the lazy consensus case, a single **+1** vote is needed. Otherwise +the proposal fails. Otherwise, the counting rules follow the general case. + +This can be useful in situations, where the proposer is not quite sure about +his/her position, or where the invoker acts on behalf of the community to +resolve a discussion which has become stuck. A starting position of **-1** can +be used to verify that a specific approach may be a bad idea: whether this is +really useful, has to be verified as we start using this process. + +### Informal Votes or Surveys ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED LATER: - - The "Consensus Decision Making" section is totally wrong. It does not describe - "Lazy Consensus" + RATIONALE for the following section: + in practice, we have always operated this way. We did this, when we introduced the + security vulnerability process and for other controversial changes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Sub-projects or teams hosted on Xenproject.org are normally auto-governing and -driven by the people who volunteer for the job. This functions well for most -cases. When more formal decision making and coordination is required, decisions -are taken with a lazy consensus approach: a few positive votes with no negative -vote are enough to get going. +Generally the Xen Project community tries to achieve consensus on most issues. +In situations where several concrete options are possible, community members +may organize an informal vote on the different proposals and use the +[conventions above](#expressingopinion) to identify the strongest proposal. +Once the strongest candidate has been identified, [lazy +consensus](#lazyconsensus) could be used to close the discussion. In some +situation, a specific survey may need to be created, to help identify gaging +consensus on specific issues. For informal votes and surveys, we do not +prescribe specific rules, as they are non-binding: it is up to the organizer of +an informal vote or survey to interpret the result and explain it to the +community. If the vote/survey relates to an area that is owned by the project +leadership, the project leadership has to formally confirm the decision. + +Note that informal votes amongst a small set of stake-holders that disagree on +a position during technical disagreements in code, design reviews and other +discussions can be useful. In technical discussions it is not always clear how +strong agreement or disagreement on a specific issue is. Using the [conventions +above](#expressingopinion), can help differentiate between minor and major +disagreements and reduce the time a discussions continues unnecessarily. This +is true in particular for cases, where several maintainers may need to agree to +a proposal. + +When having an informal vote or survey, they creator should consider whether +conducting a vote or survey in public, may be divisive and damaging for the +community. In such cases, the vote/survey should be conducted anonomously. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - Introduce -2 to +2 voting under a new section + The following section represents the most significant change to the governance. In + the original governance document, we had one way of making project-local decisions + through a formal vote on proposals by maintainers. Unfortunately, in the original + governance document, tallying the vote is not specified. However, in the general + section about how we make decisions, we essentially say that decisions in general + only hold, if there are no objections (vetos). As some people stated in prior + discussion this gets as to "a UN-style model that requires unanimity". + + If we end up with disagreements, we then have conflict resolution mechanisms, which + require a simple majority by committers. + + This raises the question, why we don't go for a more unified approach for decisions, + that does not require two stages. In a number of previous discussions on xen-devel@ + it was proposed by several committers, that a majority based approach, with more than + a simple majority as requirement for making decisions (e.g. 2/3rds or 75%) may be + more desirable. + + This section attempts to + - optimise, consolidate and clarify formal decision making + - in particular in situations where it is not clear who owns a decision + - and use the same decision making mechanism for *all* types of decisions that + cannot be resolved by RTC and Lazy Consensus + - The exception is Project Wide Decision Making ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Voting is done with numbers: +### Leadership Team Decisions {#leadership} + +Each sub-project has a leadership team, which is typically made up of the most +senior and influential developers within the sub-project (e.g. the project's +committers). The project leadership team owns decisions, such as: + +- Sub-project wide policy decisions (e.g. policies, procedures and processes +whose scope is specific to the sub-projects). This includes deviations from +project global governance, where permissible. +- Decisions related to sub-project assets that are not clearly owned (e.g. +unowned code, project wide assets such as test infrastructure, etc.). +- Decisions related to nominating and confirming leadership roles within the +sub-project. This includes [decisions to creating and filling specialised new +roles](#elections), such as release managers or similar, including their scope +and set of responsibilities. +- Resolving [conflicts](#conflict) within the sub-project that cannot +otherwise be resolved. + +Leadership team decisions can be made in private (e.g. a private IRC meeting, +on a private mailing list, through a private vote) or on a public mailing list +using [decision making conventions](#expressingopinion). If a decision is made +in private, the outcome must be summarized in terms of number of votes in +favour or against on a public mailing list. Decisions should **not** generally +be made in an anonymous vote, unless there is a good reason to do so. For +example, if the decision may be divisive and damage the cohesion of the +leadership team, an anonymous vote is preferred. In such cases, the leadership +team, can ask the the community manager, to arrange an anonymous vote on behalf +of the leadership team. + +Decisions (also called Resolutions) require a **2/3rd** majority amongst active +leadership team members in favour of a proposal. The tallying of votes follows +the rules outlined below. Note that a minimum of 3 leadership team members is +needed for a [leadership team to function](#exceptional-circumstances). + +Leadership team decisions normally have to be made actively: in other words +each team member has to cast a vote **explicitly** expressing their opinion. +The only exception are face-2-face or on-line meetings with a quorum of +**2/3rd** of active leadership team members present at the meeting: in such +cases a meeting chair is required who calls for decision on a resolution and +asks for objections. This allows to conduct meetings more quickly. + +__Passed/Failed Resolutions:__ + +Voting is conducted in line with the following rules: + +- Project leadership team members vote for (**+1**) or against (**-1**) a +resolution. There is no differentiation between **+1**/ **+2** and +**-1**/**-2**: in other words a **+2** is counted as a vote for, a **-2** as a +vote against the resolution. The number of votes for and against a resolution +is called **active vote**. **0** votes **are not counted** as an active vote. +- A **quorum of more than 50% of active votes** is required for a resolution +to pass. In other words, if the leadership team has 7 members, at least 4 +active votes are required for a resolution to pass. +- The resolution passes, if a 2/3 majority of active votes is in favour of +it. + +The table below maps active votes against votes needed to pass: + + ---------------------------- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- + **Active Votes** 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 + **+1 votes needed to pass** 7 6 6 5 4 4 3 2 2 + ---------------------------- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- +1 : a positive vote -- 0 : abstain, have no opinion -- -1 : a negative vote + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + This comment section contains some examples that have influenced the section above. + I am leaving this in for now, but the comment section (as all comments sections + will be removed from the published html). + + The consensus seems to be for the 0-rule as outlined below and is encoded in the + proposal above. -A negative vote should include an alternative proposal or a detailed -explanation of the reasons for the negative vote. The project community then -tries to gather consensus on an alternative proposal that resolves the issue. -In the great majority of cases, the concerns leading to the negative vote can -be addressed. + We also seem to be agreed on a 2/3rd majority for leadership decisions. -### Conflict Resolution + Let me express this as an algorithm. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED LATER: - - Generalise refereeing in terms of Project Leadership instead of specific roles - - Also some examples for sPecific situations that have happened in the past may be - useful - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + treshhold=2/3; + active='number of active members'; (7 for the Hypervisor project; IanC is inactive) + favour='number of +1 and +2 votes' + against='number of -1 and -2 votes' + strong-against='number -2 votes'; just added this as a sanity check -#### Refereeing + One open question is what to do with 0-votes. We could introduce a rule discounting + 0 votes (let's call it 0-rule). If someone votes 0, we assume they really don't care + about the outcome and are considered inactive for the purpose of the vote. -Sub-projects and teams hosted on Xenproject.org are not democracies but -meritocracies. In situations where there is disagreement on issues related to -the day-to-day running of the project, Committers and Project Leads are -expected to act as referees and make a decision on behalf of the community. -Referees should however consider whether making a decision may be divisive and -damaging for the community. In such cases, the committer community of the -project can privately vote on an issue, giving the decision more weight. + In that case: + + active -= 0-votes; + + Without the 0-rule: + - to pass: favour/active >= treshhold + to pass: with active==7, favour >= 5 + in other words, 3 (0,-1,-2)-votes block the proposal as we cant achieve favour>=5 + + With the 0-rule, let's consider 1, 2 or 3 0-votes + 1=>6: to pass: favour >=4 + in other words, 3 (-1,-2)-votes block the proposal + 2=>5: to pass: favour >=4 + in other words, 2 (-1,-2)-vote blocks the proposal + 3=>4: to pass: favour >=3 + in other words, 2 (-1,-2)-vote blocks the proposal + + Looking at the arithmetic, it does probably make sense to go for the 0-rule. If we + do, there ought to be more votes in favour of a proposal, than 0-votes. + + On the other hand, not having the 0-rule forces everyone to form an opinion, + otherise we will find it hard to make decisions. But in some cases, forming an + opinion costs significant mental capacity. + + It would also allow us to remove the complexity of differentiating between + active and non-active leadership team members by assuming that no vote, equals + a "0" vote. + + Opinions? + + The other question is whether to treat -2-votes different than -1-votes. We could + say there should not be more than 20% -2-votes. That would mean that -#### Last Resort + Without the 0-rule: + 2 -2-votes would block a proposal (instead of 3 (0,-1,-2)-votes) -In some rare cases, the lazy consensus approach may lead to the community being -paralyzed. Thus, as a last resort when consensus cannot be achieved on a -question internal to a project, the final decision will be made by a private -majority vote amongst the committers and project lead. If the vote is tied, the -project lead gets an extra vote to break the tie. + With the 0-rule + 1=>6: 2 -2-votes would block a proposal + 2=>5: 1 -2-votes would block a proposal + 3=>4: 1 -2-votes would block a proposal -For questions that affect several projects, committers and project leads of -mature projects will hold a private majority vote. If the vote is tied, the -[Xen Project Advisory Board](/join.html) will break the tie through a casting -vote. + This doesn't seem to make a difference big enough to grant the extra complexity. + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + +### Conflict Resolution {#conflict} + +Sub-projects and teams hosted on Xenproject.org are not democracies but +meritocracies. In situations where there is disagreement on issues related to +the day-to-day running of the project, the [project leadership +team](#leadership) is expected to act as referee and make a decision on behalf +of the community. Projects leadership teams can choose to delegate entire +classes of conflict resolution issues to community members and/or the project +lead (e.g. the project can choose to delegate refereeing on committer +disagreements to the project lead; or it could choose a specific committer to +always act as referee amongst a group of committers). Any such delegation needs +to be approved as normal and has to be documented. + +Should a project leadership team become dysfunctional or paralysed, the project +leadership team or project lead should work with the community manager or +advisory board to find a way forward. + +In situations where the entire Xen Project community becomes paralysed the +impacted project leadership teams or project leads should work with the +community manager or advisory board to find a way forward. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Changed headline structure: h2 to h3 - Removed Formal Votes from headline as it has been moved into a separate section + The entire last resource section goes, because it is essentially not needed any more, + as the responsibility has been moved to the project leadership, which is now making + majority based decisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -### Elections +### Elections {#elections} #### Maintainer Elections -Developers who have earned the trust of maintainers (including the project -lead) can be promoted to Maintainer. A two stage mechanism is used +Developers who have earned the trust of existing maintainers can be promoted to +maintainer. A two stage mechanism is used - Nomination: A maintainer should nominate himself by proposing a patch to the MAINTAINERS file or mailing a nomination to the project's mailing list. @@ -280,15 +587,15 @@ as a scope (set of owned components). Where the case is not obvious, evidence such as specific patches and other evidence supporting the nomination should be cited. - Confirmation: Normally, there is no need for a direct election to confirm a -new maintainer. Discussion should happen on the mailing list using the -principles of consensus decision making. If there is disagreement or doubt, the -project lead or a committer should ask the community manager to arrange a more -formal vote. +new maintainer. Discussion should happen on the mailing list using the normal +decision making process. If there is disagreement or doubt, the decision is +handled by the project leadership. -#### Committer Elections +#### Committer, Security Team Member and other Project Leadership Elections Developers who have earned the trust of committers in their project can through -election be promoted to Committer. A two stage mechanism is used +election be promoted to Committer, Security Team Member or Project Leadership +(if not covered otherwise). A two stage mechanism is used - Nomination: Community members should nominate candidates by posting a proposal to *appointments at xenproject dot org* explaining the candidate's @@ -299,74 +606,123 @@ review all proposals, check whether the nominee would be willing to accept the nomination and publish suitable nominations on the project's public mailing list for wider community input. - Election: A committer will be elected using the decision making process -outlined earlier. Voting will be done by committers for that project privately -using a voting form that is created by the community manager. Should there be a -negative vote the project lead and community manager will try and resolve the -situation and reach consensus. Results will be published on the public mailing -list. +outlined earlier. In other words, the decision is delegated to the [project +leadership team](#leadership). #### Project Lead Elections -Projects which lose their project lead are at risk of failing. Should this -occur, the project's maintainer community should agree who would want to be/be -able to be the new project lead and follow the election process as outlined -above. - -Formal Votes {#formal-votes} ------------- +Projects which have a project lead, should vote for a project lead in an +anonymous vote amongst the project leadership. + +### Project Wide Decision Making {#project-decisions} + +Project wide decisions are made through **formal global votes** and are +conducted in rare circumstances only, following the principle of [local +decision making](#principles). Global votes are only needed, when all sub-projects +hosted on Xenproject.org are affected. This is true, only for: + +- Specific votes on creating, graduating, completing/archiving of +sub-projects as outlined in [project governance](#project-governance). +- Changes to this document, where sub-projects cannot specialise. In +particular the sections: [goals](#goals), [principles](#principles), [project +wide decision making](#project-decisions) and [project +governance](#project-governance) (and small parts of [Xen Project wide +roles](#roles-global), [project team roles](#roles-local) and [decision +making](#decisions) that are needed for project governance or **apply to all +sub-projects** as stated in those sections). +- Changes to this document where sub-projects can specialise require at least +one mature project other than the Hypervisor project to be impacted +significantly by the change. The sections in question, are [project team +roles](#roles-local) and [decision making](#decisions). These sections define +the **gold standard** of how the original Hypervisor Project operates. In other +cases, the Hypervisor project leadership team can agree changes to these +sections, as they are essentially reference definitions. Other sub-projects +have to be consulted, and have to be given time to adapt to changes. +- Changes to existing global namespace policies (e.g. [Mailing List +Conventions](/help/mailing-list/100-misc/139-mailing-list-conventions.html)) +and creation of new project wide namespace policies. +- Changes to the boundary of what policies are project local and global +decision: e.g. a decision to introduce a global Security Vulnerability Response +Process that affects all sub-projects. + +Global votes are arranged by the community manager when needed (e.g. for a +project review or a global process change). Who exactly has input on a proposal +and can vote on it, depends on the type of change as outlined below: + + ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + **Proposal** **Who reviews?** **Who votes?** + ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- + Creating, graduating, Members of developer mailing Leadership teams of + completing/archiving of lists of qualifying projects **mature** sub-projects, + sub-projects with the exception of the + project which is being + reviewed (e.g. for an + archivation review, the + leadership team of the + project under review, cannot + vote). + + Global Process Changes Members of developer mailing Leadership teams of + lists of qualifying projects **mature** sub-projects, + within the scope described + above. + ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED LATER: - - Local votes should be handled elsewhere: this section should only cover global - decision making - - Better specify scope : when are Formal Votes applicable - - In fact we do not have any clear rules for tallying votes (do votes have to be - unanimous or not) - - Note that the voting eligibility is maintainers? Do we want to retain this? - I assume NO, as in practive we never did this. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Sometimes it is necessary to conduct formal voting within the community -(outside of elections). Formal votes are necessary when processes and -procedures are introduced or changed, or as part of the [Project -Governance](#project-governance). Who is eligible to vote, depends on whether -the scope of a process or procedure is **local** to a sub-project or team, or -whether it affects **all sub-projects** (or in other words, is** global**). -Examples of local scope is the [Security Policy](/security-policy.html) which -applies to the [Hypervisor Project](/developers/teams/hypervisor.html) only. -Examples of global scope are changes to this document or votes outlined in the -Project Governance. - - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - **Scope** **Who reviews?** **Who votes?** - ------------ ---------------------- ----------------------------------------- - **Local** Members of developer Maintainers of the project (or projects), - mailing lists of the which are affected by the process, - affected projects. procedure, etc. are allowed to vote. - This includes maintainers from incubation - projects (if the scope affects the - project). - - **Global** Members of all Maintainers of **all mature** projects - developer mailing and the Xenproject.org community manager - lists of all are allowed to vote. - sub-projects hosted on - Xenproject.org. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -\ The community manager first arranges a public review, followed by a timed private vote. Public review and voting should be open for a minimum of a week each. For voting a traceable poll mechanism (e.g. voting form that keeps -auditable and tamper proof records) must be used. Voting follows the -conventions as laid out in "Principle: Consensus Decision Making". - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED LATER: - - Verify terminology in light of changes above - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Project Governance {#project-governance} +auditable and tamper proof records) must be used. + +Voting is conducted **per project** in line with the following rules: + +- Each qualifying project's vote is counted per project and then aggregated +as outlined below. +- Project leadership team members vote for or against a proposal (there is no +differentiation between **-1**/**-2** and **+1**/**+2**). A **0** vote is not +counted as a valid vote. +- A **quorum of more than 50%** of each project's leadership team members is +required. In other words: if more than half of a project's leadership team +members do not vote or abstain, the entire sub-project's vote is not counted. +This avoids situations where only a minority of leadership team members votes, +which would skew the overall result. If it becomes clear, that a sub-project is +not likely to meet the quorum, the voting deadline can be extended by the +communiuty manager. + +__Passed/Failed Resolutions:__ + +- If none of the qualifying projects achieve a quorum, the change cannot +hold. In that case, we consider that there is not enough momentum behind a +change. +- For each qualifying project with a quorum, the percentage of votes in +favour and against is calculated (e.g. if 5 people voted in favour, 2 against +and 1 abstains, the share is 5/7th and 2/7th respectively). +- Votes in favour are averaged as percentages across all projects (say we +have per project figures of 50%, 80%, 70% in favour, then the total vote in +favour is 66.67%). +- If the total vote is more than 2/3rds in favour, the proposal passes. +Otherwise it fails. + +Community Decisions with Funding and Legal Implications (#funding-and-legal) +------------------------------------------------------- +In some cases sub-project local and global decisions **may require +input** from the [Advisory Board](#roles-ab) and/or the [Linux Foundation] +(#roles-lf). For example, if a proposal by a project leadership team or +a global project decision requires that the project hires a staff member or +contractor (e.g. a PR consultant, marketing manager) or requires the funding +of new infrastructure (e.g. additional test hardware or services) to implement +said proposal, then funding would need to be secured from the Advisory Board or +from other sources. + +If for example, a community proposal required the Linux Foundation to sign +a legal agreement with a 3rd party on behalf of the project/sub-project, then +of course a review of such an agreement and a signature by the Linux Foundation +would be required. + +In such cases, the impacted project leadership team(s) will contact the +Community Manager and/or Advisory Board to resolve possible issues. + +Project Governance {#project-governance} ------------------ ### Basic Project Life Cycle @@ -430,7 +786,7 @@ After a review, the requester of the review may decide to withdraw, request a re-review or progress to a vote by arranging with the community manager. **Voting:** The community manager arranges a timed private vote as outlined in -[Formal Votes](#formal-votes). +[Formal Votes](#project-decisions). ### Forming a Project @@ -530,6 +886,10 @@ bugs - It has an active developer community (as we get more experience we will add some guidelines). But things to look for are number of maintainers, different organisations involved, number of users, etc. +- It has a project leadership team that resolves conflicts and participates +in cross-project decision making +- It adheres to the Xen Project governance as outlined in this document, or +documents areas where the sub-project differs Other items to look at during the review (depending on project are): @@ -539,7 +899,8 @@ Other items to look at during the review (depending on project are): ### Mature Projects -Mature projects are expected to be run and promote themselves. The project lead +Mature projects are expected to be run and promote themselves. The project +leadership team and/or project lead has significant responsibility in ensuring that this happens. The Xen Project and the community manager will help organize events, provide opportunities for the project to get new contributors and build a community, promote new releases @@ -564,7 +925,7 @@ words it has completed In the first case the review is triggered by the incubation project's mentor. Failing this the review can be requested by any maintainer of a mature project -(including the project's lead) or by the Xen Project community manager. See +(including the projec's lead) or by the Xen Project community manager. See "Requesting Reviews, Reviews and Voting". The review is essentially a pitch why the project should be archived. The @@ -596,28 +957,57 @@ Xenproject.org, the code will be remove the code in a subsequent release (it should however give users sufficient time to adapt) -### Exceptional Circumstances +### Exceptional Circumstances {#exceptional-circumstances} -#### Projects without Project Lead +#### Incubation Projects without Project Lead -Projects which lose their project lead during the incubation or maturity phase -are at risk of failing. Should this occur, the project's maintainer community -should agree who would want to be/be able to be the new project lead and follow -the election process as outlined in "Electing Maintainers". +Projects which lose their project lead during the incubation phase, and do not +have a working project leadership team, are at risk of failing. Should this +occur, the project's maintainer or committer community should nominate a new +project lead and follow the election process as outlined in +[elections](#elections). If a project lead leaves during the formation phase, without finding a -successor we assume that the project does not have enough momentum and will not -go ahead. +successor we assume that the project does not have enough momentum and will +consider archiving the project. + +#### Projects without functional Project Leadership Team + +Projects which lose their project leadership team, or whose project leadership +team is too small to function, are at risk of failing. A project leadership +team should be of sufficient size to manage the project. Should this occur, the +project's maintainer or committer community should nominate new leadership team +members and follow the election process as outlined in [elections](#elections). + +If the community cannot create a functional leadership team, we assume that the +project does not have enough momentum and will consider archiving the project. #### Incubation projects without Mentor Should an incubation project lose its mentor, the Xen Project community manager will support the project lead in finding a new mentor. +Per Sub-Project Governance Specialisation {#specialisations} +----------------------------------------- + + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED LATER: + - Add exceptions as they surface + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + Change History -------------- -- **v3.0 July 2016:** TODO: Add real changelog in main patch +- **v3.0 September 2016:** Refactored document. Otherwise significant changes to +decision making, in the following areas + - Split roles into project wide and sub-project specific roles. + - Added +2 ... -2 scheme for votes. + - Clarified lazy consensus. + - Added Project Team Leadership role and Decision making. + - Changed Project Wide Decision making. + - Clarified scope of Decision making + - Added section on Community Decisions with Funding and Legal Implications + - Modified sections which have dependencies on changes above. - **v2.1 May 2016:** Clarify Committer Elections as per this [discussion](http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-05/msg0080 1.html) and @@ -644,5 +1034,4 @@ from Requesting Reviews, Reviews and Voting rather than duplicating - Added Making Contributions which contains links to other documentation and highlights that Xen.org required a DCO for contributions since 2005. - **v1.0 Jun 2011:** Initial document approved - \ No newline at end of file

[v2,3/3] Significant changes to decision making; some new roles and minor changes

Commit Message

Comments

Patch