Thanks Micha. It is clearer now. I have left some comments. Let us continue on the PR.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 5:39 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Walaa, > >> For the former, we could talk about avoiding conflict of interest as a >> way of "maintaining trust". For the latter, we can state some examples that >> clearly reflect conflict of interest with no ambiguity. For example, a >> committer merging a large change that received minimal discussion and >> review while working for the same employer as the PR author can be an >> indication of conflict of interest . On the other hand, an author and a >> committer merely working for the same employer does not necessarily >> constitute conflict of interest if proper process was followed and >> sufficient stakeholders were included in the discussion. > > > To avoid confusion, I've removed all discussion on conflicts of interest. > > >> For the last two paragraphs, I thought we could just clarify them a bit. >> All they need may be a bit of untangling to directly state what needs a >> discussion vs a vote vs an IIP. Current flow starts with the committer's >> opinion, then a list of exceptions that require some (or all?) of the >> above. Further, it was not clear if the exception is to committer's >> ability to merge or something else, since the exceptions are stated as >> "There are several exceptions to this process:", but it was not clear what >> process/which part of it. Hence, being more direct could simplify parsing >> these two paragraphs. > > > I have tried to remove the ambiguity on the "this process". For anything > not addressed it would be helpful if you could make specific > recommendations on the PR. > > Thanks, > Micah > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 11:18 PM Walaa Eldin Moustafa < > wa.moust...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think the issue with the first paragraph is about: >> >> 1- The perceived contradiction between a) trusting committers to act in >> the best interest of the project and b) simultaneously providing specific >> guidelines on how to act (e.g., by avoiding conflicts of interest). >> >> 2- The specific examples given for the conflict of interest, which if >> applied generically, could lead to unnecessary avoidance of reviewing. >> >> For the former, we could talk about avoiding conflict of interest as a >> way of "maintaining trust". For the latter, we can state some examples that >> clearly reflect conflict of interest with no ambiguity. For example, a >> committer merging a large change that received minimal discussion and >> review while working for the same employer as the PR author can be an >> indication of conflict of interest . On the other hand, an author and a >> committer merely working for the same employer does not necessarily >> constitute conflict of interest if proper process was followed and >> sufficient stakeholders were included in the discussion. How about >> something like this: >> >> Committers are entrusted to act in the best interest of the project, and >> part of maintaining this trust involves managing potential conflicts of >> interest. While there is no exhaustive definition of what constitutes a >> conflict of interest, it is important to recognize situations that could >> lead to that perception. For instance, a conflict of interest might be more >> evident if a committer approves and merges a substantial change that has >> received minimal discussion or review, particularly when there is a close >> professional relationship between the committer and the author. This >> scenario could be interpreted as providing preferential treatment, which >> can undermine the integrity of the project. However, merely working for the >> same employer as the author does not, by itself, create a conflict of >> interest—especially when proper processes are followed, and a sufficient >> number of stakeholders are involved in the discussion and review. The focus >> should be on ensuring transparency and broad input to maintain the trust >> essential for the project's success. >> >> For the last two paragraphs, I thought we could just clarify them a bit. >> All they need may be a bit of untangling to directly state what needs a >> discussion vs a vote vs an IIP. Current flow starts with the committer's >> opinion, then a list of exceptions that require some (or all?) of the >> above. Further, it was not clear if the exception is to committer's ability >> to merge or something else, since the exceptions are stated as "There are >> several exceptions to this process:", but it was not clear what >> process/which part of it. Hence, being more direct could simplify parsing >> these two paragraphs. >> >> Thanks, >> Walaa. >> >
