MAINTAINERS_GUIDE: Replace Chief Maintainer with GOVERNANCE #42
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
wking
force-pushed
the
drop-chief-maintainer
branch
from
655b42d to
e66361a
Compare
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is
now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion
I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three
days.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
* Fixed "point of views" -> "points of view".
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
|
Thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Cherry-picked from #20, because there was more discussion in today's meeting about dropping this role, but we haven't been able to move forward with #20 as a whole. Cc @caniszczyk.
Hooray institutions ;). Because
GOVERNANCE.mdis already making decisions with a ⅔ vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the old ⅔ vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision outright).All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs (although runc has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach was not. Taking the runc maintainer subset of that vote (just to be sure the doc applies to runc):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol-0#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosbyand 7/9 > ⅔.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a ⅔ vote of maintainers could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and the same ⅔ vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a five “business days” window for new maintainers one-week window for other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three days.
Also: