+1 for this change. (We may just want to be sure we only do this for
things where there isn't ongoing discussion like UPDATE, where we're
still finalizing the exact syntax based on input from the dev
community? I'm not sure how to phrase that - e.g., "if the discussion
is clearly positive and there aren't open issues"? I would characterize
UPDATE's discussion as positive but still converging on the final details.)
On 10/30/24 10:23 AM, Ian Maxon wrote:
Hi all,
There has been a great influx of APEs lately, and that is wonderful to see.
I also think many of them are not very controversial; the discussion thread
is pretty much just +1 or agreement on the feature being a great addition.
When the PMC voted on adopting the APE process in 2023, the process we
agreed on was having a [DISCUSS] thread and then a [VOTE] thread. I think
this is overkill in the case where the change is clearly a shoo-in. I
therefore propose the process be amended such that:
- IF the discussion is clearly positive after 72 hours, AND
-the change is not breaking or deprecating existing functionality, AND
-3 or more PMC members have expressed positive sentiment at the change
the APE is by default accepted.
Thoughts?
-Ian
