andreahlert commented on code in PR #147: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow-steward/pull/147#discussion_r3259499122
########## PRINCIPLES.md: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +<!-- Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + distributed with this work for additional information + regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + + http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + + Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + software distributed under the License is distributed on an + "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + specific language governing permissions and limitations + under the License. --> + +# Apache Steward Design Principles + +These principles regulate what this framework is and how it evolves. Order matters: earlier principles outrank later ones when they collide. Within the same family, the stricter reading wins until governance documents otherwise. + +A change (PR, skill, tool adapter, release) that violates a principle is wrong even if every test passes. Any committer may block it on principle grounds. The block lifts when the change complies, or when a principle-amendment proposal carries through governance with the same weight as a release vote. + Review Comment: There's a real gap here but I think it's a different one than "committer has no vote". the block already has a vote-free exit: the change complies. author fixes it to not violate the principle and the block is gone, nobody votes. the missing case is when the author and the committer disagree on whether it actually complies. that's the hole, no adjudicator for a contested block. The "PMC overrides it anyway" branch assumes a PMC override that the doc never grants. there's no override clause anywhere. so it's not toothless-or-deadlock, it's just the one deadlock when compliance is disputed. I'd rather not demote the block to a non-binding objection. a committer being able to block on principle, even against a PMC member's PR, is intentional, principles are the shared base and that's the one place seniority doesn't buy a pass. making it "for PMC consideration" guts that. so I kept the block binding and added a third resolution path instead: when the author and the blocking committer disagree on whether the change complies, a PMC vote settles whether the principle is violated. the committer doesn't need a vote to raise the block, they need the dispute to have an exit. raising the objection and adjudicating it are different roles, the committer does the first, the PMC does the second. updated the preamble in the PR. @justinmclean, @potiuk and other PMC folks, would like your read on this one specifically. the committer-can-block-a-PMC-PR bit is a deliberate design choice and I want to make sure the resolution path feels right before it sets in. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
