Let me summarize Enrico's conclusion: 1. The BookKeeper Proposals (BP) process is: directly initiate a VOTE thread (without DISSCUSSION thread) 2. Constraint scope: that votes from BookKeeper's committers and BookKeeper's PMC are binding
I think this topic is too divergent, I have summarized it to make it more focused, and everyone can vote based on this conclusion On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 2:15 PM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a question about the BookKeeper Proposals (BP) process. > > The process description is here: > > https://bookkeeper.apache.org/community/bookkeeper-proposals#how-to-make-a-bp > It says: > "Once the BP is finalized, reviewed and approved by committers, the BP is > accepted. The criterion for acceptance is lazy majority." > > The link to "lazy majority" is to this document: > https://bookkeeper.apache.org/project/bylaws/#approvals > "A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 > votes than -1 votes." > > The process description isn't consistent. > There's no explicit description of a VOTE thread on the mailing list. It > describes a discussion thread. Does the voting happen in the discussion > thread? > Is it necessary at all to vote for BPs, or is a PR review sufficient to > accept and merge a BP? > > Could we update the BP process description so it's clearer about how the > decision is made? > > -Lari >
