(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 <ctubb...@apache.org> 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 <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