Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
GOVERNANCE.md: remove “Community Processes” in favor of “GOVERNANCE.md” #21067
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
GOVERNANCE.md: remove “Community Processes” in favor of “GOVERNANCE.md” #21067
Changes from all commits
d3ed389
4f6d46d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Question from my side: can a contributor also actively ask for becoming maintainer? This would make it less of a 'waiting until someone may ask me' and gives some responsibility to a contributor too.
If yes: can there be an addition to the text, stating this possibility and a description of how to do that (how to reach out, to whom etc)?
If no: than don't add :).
(I would advice to describe here how the procedure currently is, so if the procedure is someone is being asked only, than keep it this way. If it has happened before that people reach out by themselves and that is desirable, than change it)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the past it was very obvious in their behavior if a contributor intended to be a maintainer (reviewing PRs even without the rights to merge and writing issues), but in general there is no precedence of a would-be maintainer outright asking. So I'd say let's keep it as is, but I will put this in my forum summary of the current state of discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How is decided what 'failure to fulfill their Maintainer responsibilities' or 'for other reasons' is and thus when someone should be removed as maintainer?
Answering this question (and adding something in this text) is relevant if this is a point where a healthy working process can get stuck (e.g., not getting to an agreement whether a maintainer should be removed or not, resulting in nothing happening and more of these situations can occur in the future).
If this is not expected to become an issue, no additions to this text are needed. (referencing to my general 'describe the process steps when it prevents big problems, otherwise a general description is ok').
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't expect this to become an issue. But maybe others do?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Quoting from #21067 (comment) as this is somewhat lost in truncation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is not directly clear to me what is meant here with stakeholders. I saw the earlier discussion on it, and therefore understand the choosing of this word. This may not be clear to someone fresh reading the text.
Maybe there can be added a word overview to the document, explaining what is meant with 'stakeholders' in this document? Something showing that within the RIOT community there are many people who are part of an organization/institute and work from that institute on RIOT, but we also have individuals not belonging to an organization and want to address them all alike.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Something like 30a2f85?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We currently don't have any appointed moderators for other communication channels, do we? This text makes it sound as if we had (or at least would like to have) them, but doesn't give a hint on what those are.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do. The forum moderators where appointed by the community back when the forum was started.[edit: 2024-12-10T14:35] Should have read more clearly. No, we don't have.With the chats it usually goes the “IRC way”. People are appointed somewhat on merrit and on how active they are. Since the moderation roles in the chats is, however, a little bit different than on the forum, I don't think there needs to be a moderator appointment procedure for that.
With the few mailing lists remaining, the moderators are mostly sorting out spam, so while similar to forum moderation, I also don't think appointment procedures are necessary here.
A forum moderator, on the other hand, actually can moderate a discussion on the forum, in the traditional sense of the word. They can edit posts, they can split out conversations in new topics and make forum topics a “wiki post” (so something everyone can edit). In that regard, they have much more power and require a certain level of trust from the community.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See #21067 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also lost in trunctation #21067 (comment):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice to have a person who can act as tiebreaker!
How exactly is decided who this is? As in: if there is disagreement on a topic, how is decided who the maintainers knowledgeable the area of expertise is, exactly? Can that be described here?
If there is disagreement on who this person is, what can be used as tiebreaker to decide?
(to answer this question it helps to ask yourselves: what did successfully work in the past?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Within the IETF there working groups with one chair are uncommon. So why can't multiple maintainers be the deciders here as well? Rough consensus means that the opinions of experts also should not be disregarded, so this describes exactly this case.
So far a tiebreaker was not needed, if I remember correctly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How does this work with decision regarding documentation?
And regarding strategy setting/vision/goals?
Here too: what has worked successfully on (controversial) decisions in documentation in the past, and what procedures lie behind it that can be used for future decision making? And what was successful for taking strategy decisions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Documentation is typically about something code related, so I'd say the maintainer responsible for the code (after all, they could e.g. also see immediately that the doc is factually incorrect).
We have our maintainers / experts there as well (see #21067 (comment) ff). :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I intentionally try to avoid links to platforms beyond our website or GitHub in this document, as those might change in the future, while putting them in here would just ossify them (or the links could spoil like milk,... see the old maintainer list or other links I just had to move around), see also #21067 (comment).