On 11/2/26 1:00 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2026 at 6:51 AM Ruediger Pluem via dev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/31/26 1:15 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> Hi, vote version of this thread since it looks promising:
>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dpnfl07kjns2w5q6jlj1r5nppgwkn145
>>>
>>> Context (for non-CTR components)
>>>
>>> In SVN / STATUS, three committer approvals are required. Self-review
>>> is counted, so in practice there are two independent +1s needed.
>>>
>>> I propose with this vote that we reduce this by 1 in practice and also
>>> establish some guidance on what non-STATUS review is.
>>>
>>> * With passing (or explainable) CI only two committer approvals are
>>> needed. Without CI, an additional committer review is needed.
>>> * Committer approval includes: github review, PR comment, explicit
>>> dev@ email approval, security@ review, or the merge itself.
>>>
>>> This means that in practice for committers Alice and Bob that if Alice
>>> proposes a PR against 2.4.x, and CI doesn't regress, a single review
>>> (including just a LGTM comment) from Bob is all that's needed for
>>> Alice to move on to merging the work.
>>>
>>> In the case where Alice is not a committer: Two different committers
>>> should do a combination of passing review/comment/merge. The 2nd
>>> doesn't need to do anything explicit.
>>>
>>>
>>> [ ] +1: Allow two approvals, including self-approval with CI
>>
>> This sounds a bit different than the thing explained in the text above.
>> My understanding is that a committer that wants to backport something still
>> needs an approval by another committer. The line above sounds like if you
>> can backport without if CI is fine.
>
> Sorry for the confusion, I struggled with the wording. It is the more
> conservative interpretation. The other way to phrase it: the CI is
> the "third" approval.
>
> In a typical case where you propose in STATUS and include your own +1,
> we required two additional committers to sign off.
> In the case where you submit a PR and CI passes / is explainable, the
> positive vote here says we only require 1 additional committer.
>
> I think we can keep existing votes if we are choosing the more
> conservative interpretation.
[X] +1: Allow two approvals, including self-approval with CI
Then I am fine.
Regards
Rüdiger
