I'm happy to provide feedback on a CONTRIBUTING.md, but I don't want to take the lead on this particular doc right now.
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 1:48 PM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > It is probably worthwhile to codify our “policy” so that it’s not confused > later. Simply adding something about lazy consensus model to the > CONTRIBUTING.md (which I realize we are missing, already working on that) > might be useful. > > I could take a stab at the wording based on my earlier reply about this if > no one else wants to. > > -jake > > > > On May 31, 2019, at 12:44 PM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > I have learned that other than the required quarterly report to the > board, just about everything else about being an Apache project is just > guidelines, not hard requirements. I was confused because we do adhere > rigorously to every other voting guideline on > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html; now I understand that is > by choice and not because Apache “requires” it. > > > > Thank you for all the responses on this thread. It seems like the > consensus is that we’ve struck an appropriate balance already (and in > particular regard to reviews, that we can trust committers to seek an > appropriate amount of review based on the nature and scope of a PR). > > > > I will not seek a vote on enforcing a requirement of 1 (or more) reviews > before a PR can be merged, since some valid scenarios were raised where 0 > reviews prior to merge could be appropriate. > > > >> On May 31, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On May 31, 2019, at 8:52 AM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >>> > >>> Apache requires 3 reviews for code changes. Docs and typos likely > would not > >>> fall under that heading. > >> > >> Where is this listed as a requirement? The link you sent before > offered guidance on common policies within the organization. > >> > > >
