[VOTE] Promote Windows Exporter as an official exporter

[Julien Pivotto]

Dear Prometheans,

As per our governance [1], "any matter that needs a decision [...] may
be called to a vote by any member if they deem it necessary."

I am therefore calling a vote to promote Prometheus-community's Windows
Exporter [2] to Prometheus GitHub org, to make it an official exporter.

Official exporters are exporters under the Prometheus github org, listed
as official on Prometheus.io and available under the Downloads page.

This would provide recognition and credibility to the exporter and its
contributors, which have provided a large amount of work in the last
years, and built a huge community.

It would make it easier for users to find and use the exporter, as it
would be listed on the Prometheus website and promoted on the other
official channels - such as our announce mailing list.

Anyone interested is encouraged to participate in this vote and this
discussion. As per our governance, only votes from the team members will
be counted.

Vote is open for 1 week - until December 12.

[1] https://prometheus.io/governance/
[2] https://github.com/prometheus-community/windows_exporter

--
Julien Pivotto
@roidelapluie

[Matthias Rampke]

YES

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prometheus Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to prometheus-devel...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/Y43Lmr2%2Bb2fk8YSz%40nixos.

[Tobias Schmidt]

YES

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/CAMV%3D_gYn8VaiMdQiui98JFw3%2BTGnF-hWxmZikayCJ0gkm_cXag%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ben Kochie]

YES

[Vishwanath N]

YES

[Chris Marchbanks]

YES

[Fabian Stäber]

YES

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/CAMV%3D_gYn8VaiMdQiui98JFw3%2BTGnF-hWxmZikayCJ0gkm_cXag%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ganesh Vernekar]

YES

[Bjoern Rabenstein]

YES

For the record:

While I agree with the proposal, I do not think it requires a
vote. I'm mostly mentioning it here so that nobody will see this as a
precedent or a role model that we will require votes from now on on
every new repository in the Prometheus GH org or something.

I think of moving a repository inte the Prometheus GH org as a
technical decision. But even if it is considered non-technical, I
don't read the governance as "any non-technical decision needs a
vote". A vote is only needed if a team member "deems it
necessary". Now that might be exactly the case here, but then I would
like to understand why. I do not expect any controversies here. And
even if they happened, I would only consider a vote after they have
shown up, not proactively.

In yet other words: I think voting is mostly meant for formal
decisions (governance changes, team membership changes). Other
decisions should only be voted on as a last resort. If that happens a
lot, it points towards a problem. We have been there, and luckily got
out of it. From that perspective, I would prefer if we did not call
votes lightheartedly.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prometheus Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to prometheus-devel...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/Y43Lmr2%2Bb2fk8YSz%40nixos.

--
Björn Rabenstein
[PGP-ID] 0x851C3DA17D748D03
[email] bjo...@rabenste.in

[Julien Pivotto]

On 06 Dec 18:05, Bjoern Rabenstein wrote:
> YES
>
> For the record:
>
> While I agree with the proposal, I do not think it requires a
> vote. I'm mostly mentioning it here so that nobody will see this as a
> precedent or a role model that we will require votes from now on on
> every new repository in the Prometheus GH org or something.
>
> I think of moving a repository inte the Prometheus GH org as a
> technical decision. But even if it is considered non-technical, I
> don't read the governance as "any non-technical decision needs a
> vote". A vote is only needed if a team member "deems it
> necessary". Now that might be exactly the case here, but then I would
> like to understand why. I do not expect any controversies here. And
> even if they happened, I would only consider a vote after they have
> shown up, not proactively.

I agree with you - this is not mandatory per governance - and new
repositories have popped up in the Prometheus org without a vote - such
as Promlens.

We already discussed the maintainership of the exporter via lazy
consensus on the private mailing list, as per our governance.

I had two things in mind when calling the actual move to a vote:

1. I considered that the Windows exporter had a large community of users
and that taking the decision in public would be good for the community.
Some people might object for various reasons, so it made sense to me
to do it in public.
2. I felt that the one week delay would serve us best than the few days
that lazy consensus allows. This gives a proper date to end the vote
and people who want to react know that there is a deadline. I don't
expect us to reach 1/2 of the Prometheus team voting within a week,
because it's not a majority vote. I wanted this to be time-framed
somehow.

When I look at each point individually, I would not have called a vote.
But when I see them together, then this met (my) bar for a vote.

> In yet other words: I think voting is mostly meant for formal
> decisions (governance changes, team membership changes). Other
> decisions should only be voted on as a last resort. If that happens a
> lot, it points towards a problem. We have been there, and luckily got
> out of it. From that perspective, I would prefer if we did not call
> votes lightheartedly.

I do not think we will start voting lightheartedly because of this one
vote.

This is the second public vote this year, and the other one was in
February. We also have precedent of new repos added and even archived
without a vote, so I don't expect this to be the norm.

Informal, lazy consensus is the default in Prometheus-team, as the low
number of public votes held this year shows.

--
Julien Pivotto
@roidelapluie

[Bjoern Rabenstein]

On 06.12.22 23:05, Julien Pivotto wrote:
>
> I had two things in mind when calling the actual move to a vote:
>
> 1. I considered that the Windows exporter had a large community of users
> and that taking the decision in public would be good for the community.
> Some people might object for various reasons, so it made sense to me
> to do it in public.
> 2. I felt that the one week delay would serve us best than the few days
> that lazy consensus allows. This gives a proper date to end the vote
> and people who want to react know that there is a deadline. I don't
> expect us to reach 1/2 of the Prometheus team voting within a week,
> because it's not a majority vote. I wanted this to be time-framed
> somehow.

I would claim that both can be achieved by mailing this list
(prometheus-developers@) with the proposal, stating that feedback is
welcome, and that lazy consensus is assumed if there are no objections
within a week.

In any case, thanks for sharing your reasoning. It helps me to
understand the context.

And maybe I'm just traumatized from the past when we had to use votes
frequently because consensus was impossible to reach.

[Richard Hartmann]

YES

But agreeing with Beorn's points.

[Julien Pivotto]

With 8 YES votes from Team and 0 NO votes, the Windows Exporter will
become official. Addidionally, we gave got 1 informative YES vote from
the community

Ben Reedy and Calle Pettersson will keep maintaining the exporter, and
as per our governance will be invited to join the Prometheus Org.

Thanks all!

--
Julien Pivotto
@roidelapluie