> > Just to make sure I got this 100% right, you mean the work related as part > of the proposal would be under development, correct?
Yes! And I like your suggestion to just create a couple of buckets on the wiki, rather than one for each state. -Dan On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:37 PM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> wrote: > > it might be nice to have separate subdirectories on the wiki for the > different proposal states, to easily see what state the proposals are in. > > I think that's useful. I wonder if it would make sense though to bucket > some of these. Maybe we could make do with just a "current" and "old" > directory. I like hiding RFCs that are no longer relevant, but don't care > much if they are dropped or superseded. Likewise, I don't care much if they > are active, under discussion or under development. Thoughts? > > > One thing that isn't visible in these states - is the proposal actively > under development? It might be nice to clearly distinguish between > proposals that are under development vs. finished. > > Just to make sure I got this 100% right, you mean the work related as part > of the proposal would be under development, correct? > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:30 PM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Looks good to me! > > > > A couple of minor thoughts - it might be nice to have separate > > subdirectories on the wiki for the different proposal states, to easily > see > > what state the proposals are in. > > > > One thing that isn't visible in these states - is the proposal actively > > under development? It might be nice to clearly distinguish between > > proposals that are under development vs. finished. > > > > -Dan > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:31 PM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Having the RFC discussion in a pull request was by far the most > >> controversial aspect of this proposal. Because we were unable to come to > >> an > >> agreement, we should stick with the smallest change to what we are doing > >> already. Therefore I moved the proposal to the wiki where all existing > >> proposals are. > >> > >> Please take a look there > >> < > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Lightweight+RFC+Process > >> > > >> and let's discuss here if any changes should be made. Otherwise I intent > >> to > >> move the proposal to `active` tomorrow. > >> > >> Thank you everyone! > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:26 PM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi everyone, > >> > > >> > I am proposing a new process that is aimed to address some of the > issues > >> > we've recently encountered in making collective decisions. The process > >> I am > >> > proposing would use pull request to discuss proposals. > >> > > >> > To demonstrate the process, I submitted my proposal as a pull request > >> > <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3706>. While this email has the > >> > [DISCUSS] label, I ask to *please keep all discussions on the PR > >> > <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3706>* to test drive the > proposed > >> > process. There already is a healthy discussion on the PR, including if > >> the > >> > process in general should take place via a PR. > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > > >> > > >
