(by "update the website", I mean, just do a PR against the website for formal review)
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >
