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 <ke...@deenlo.com> 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 <ctubb...@apache.org> 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 <ke...@deenlo.com> 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 <ke...@deenlo.com>
> 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.
> >>
>

Reply via email to