From owner-freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Thu Jun 15 00:23:59 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C60BF7125 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from benno@jeamland.net) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F8B7E2D9 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from benno@jeamland.net) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 81045BF7124; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:59 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809D8BF7123 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from benno@jeamland.net) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F1947E2D8; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from benno@jeamland.net) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6005820AB3; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:23:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jeamland.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=KyT93JaXT7CBSz2gRP mJ0oMOQcvwi+UqFome7zKWkts=; b=Yoe/lwT7kfkLHJWuFhoOT4xi4biSs22xE1 nKi7g80a4ciAkw8+dDkjnPY0R5G3fpDk/tOkBxOjTDnSw+IwCHT72eVbVGgHLCoE VJDEA/vvp1rdmfl+UGuxpxpsc7UQee6qg0MFnnqLG7/vyfYvUWTLxB+Pk2EKDINa xjIDwxALjAguWD5UTGJCt6dXQk7r5e9UiJ+5yAcmBH4+MtPtPisGK/JlWaSLvTwV 8o0VibODHUvUbG94ox9tdlgbqIqJr9liL2mqFIGI47UVDryV1nfyAnKmB9idEJbS Hb7/Vdt2rgatduUNAbxCQHzvhgYBrIYeNGfkTxdHgC8c3RQrMctg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=KyT93JaXT7CBSz2gRPmJ0oMOQcvwi+UqFome7zKWkts=; b=c25TcO06 Y+qq4JNyKppQDxiyGuMFNdiWaqML/mEaReCTJCVyZbAptJKS+7ijJhbMa/KAe6W/ 1vbdO5t8OC4miHMRxnhYWeBxyFQ8TLAC/oKW5oeAuioe4FJletXQGXPcFqqZ9J5v hy1qi+aIo15f1x/4ck7fa9tV/v9OIvivjY/4uh4Dyu3Q4SpLURH4yrgG631hlXkf PUcnAul8JxW+t/+cUIw6nyELYwpuBrZUF3zHccrF1fH2+8KuuwXh8s7tCdZTLFvl mHUmtc5s5i0PnjCVZkmQDpU0D4u9gbKp7COE6KRsj1mYEKo/HLsxp8nUQLgK+cAA ho9d8cLnODoCMg== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: edAPBFYAoWrVGPdXmCFlnqAYa8M3M0R0wdHHh1mrJIJ6 1497486237 Received: from mittlerweile.west.isilon.com (c-76-104-201-218.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [76.104.201.218]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A70AE24772; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' From: Benno Rice In-Reply-To: <536D30FA-42CF-4F7F-9AE3-70B0822977C3@me.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:23:54 -0700 Cc: Warner Losh , fcp@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Developers Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7E8C8EF6-D73E-4FD3-817F-BADC0527D4B3@jeamland.net> References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> <536D30FA-42CF-4F7F-9AE3-70B0822977C3@me.com> To: Rui Paulo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Community Proposals List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:59 -0000 > On Jun 14, 2017, at 15:45, Rui Paulo wrote: >=20 > On Jun 14, 2017, at 14:20, Warner Losh wrote: >>=20 >> It was explained at bsdcan the the vote is primarily for "this = repents the general consensus" rather than, this is the direction we = should go. If the fcp doesn't match consensus then it will be voted no. >=20 > That=E2=80=99s what you think will happen, but the FCP doesn=E2=80=99t = say anything about that and the interpretations of the community and = core might be different. > It just seems like a bad model for core to try to interpret = everyone=E2=80=99s feedback and then vote on it. If people provide = feedback and say something like =E2=80=9CAPPROVE=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNEED= S DISCUSSION=E2=80=9D, it will make the process much more transparent. >=20 > The vote should come from the people providing feedback. I see no = reason why core needs to vote on other people=E2=80=99s feedback. I put some thought in to this. I don=E2=80=99t think an ad hoc group comprising just the people = providing feedback works, mainly due to a lack of consistency in the = make-up of the group approving or disapproving. You could have a group = appointed by core (or elected by developers) but then that doesn=E2=80=99t= seem to be too different to just using core itself. Core has = _historically_ not involved itself in technical decisions but there=E2=80=99= s nothing that says they can=E2=80=99t and this model is not the same as = core just making technical decisions without input. I=E2=80=99d be more than happy if you wanted to propose a wording change = that said that core MUST base its decision on the feedback the proposal = has received. In general I=E2=80=99d make the point that core is elected by the = developers. This indicates that the developers have some trust in core = to do the right thing. FCP is designed to help provide structure to = debates over change and help drive them to a resolution. For that to = work there needs to be a consistent group that is distilling the = discussion around the change into a resolution. Even if I weren=E2=80=99t = on core I=E2=80=99d be happy with the concept that core is the right = body for that. The final point I=E2=80=99d make is that the FCP process itself is = designed to malleable. If you feel that core isn=E2=80=99t making the = right decisions, write an FCP that changes the process. If core = doesn=E2=80=99t accept it, vote for a different core and try again. The = process is designed to handle that situation. If you feel there are improvements you can make on FCP 0 now it=E2=80=99s = currently in the feedback state, not the accepted state, for a good = reason. Thanks, Benno.=