On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Mike Walch <[email protected]> wrote: > A pull request to the website makes sense to me as that is where the policy > change to RTC will be communicated to new contributors. If anyone has > objections to the change, they can -1 the pull request.
SGTM > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:48 PM Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (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. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >>
