Do we even need to vote? I think we already have consensus. Can probably just update the website at this point.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:01 PM Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > Any thoughts about the following vote email? > > Subject : [VOTE] Allow bypassing RTC for urgent changes > > All changes to Fluo are currently made via review then commit (RTC). > Please > vote on allowing bypassing RTC for urgent updates with the following commit > process. > > * Make an appropriate level of effort to request a review. > * If applicable, take appropriate steps to ensure that their actions can > be > reversed. > * Send an explanation to the dev list (or private list, if sensitive) > immediately after committing justifying the urgency. > > Such emergencies should be extremely rare, and would typically only apply > to > things not blocked by a release vote (such as a website change). > > This vote is open for 3 days. > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > How about something like: > > > > """ > > Reviews may only be bypassed in the case of an emergency, and only after > an > > appropriate level of effort has been made to request a review. Before > > bypassing a review, the committer should take appropriate steps to ensure > > that their actions can be reversed, if necessary. The committer should > also > > send an explanation to the dev list (or private list, if sensitive) > > immediately afterwards justifying the urgency. The PMC members will > decide > > whether the action was warranted, and what follow-on actions should be > > taken, if any. Such emergencies should be extremely rare, and would > > typically only apply to things not blocked by a release vote (such as a > > website change). > > """ > > > > The above proposed wording has the benefit of being simple, flexible, and > > accountable, but not being tied to any complex rules like tagging, > > labeling, waiting for specific durations, etc. that can undermine the > > efficacy of an emergency action. It's also very broad, so it isn't > > dependent on specific workflows or infrastructure tools, which can change > > over time. > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:12 AM Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> In addition to tagging as urgent, a short explanation of why its > >> urgent should be given. > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > I have been thinking that it may be useful to relax RTC for urgent > >> > website updates. I can not imagine this being needed for Fluo or > >> > Fluo Recipes because of the 3 day release process. However, the > >> > website is always immediately available after any update. It would be > >> > nice to have an agreed on mechanism for bypassing RTC for the website. > >> > Possibly something like the following : > >> > > >> > * Create PR for website and tag it urgent > >> > * Attempt to contact other PMC members > >> > * Wait X time (for example 10 mins) > >> > * After X time if no one has indicated they are reviewing, then > >> > commiter can push > >> > > >> > I think the policy should include something like : should this policy > >> > ever cause strife in the community, it must be repealed immediately. > >> >
