The current state of the PR looks good to me. I feel it is a good starting point that we will update over time.
- Anton пт, 16 серп. 2024 р. о 17:55 Walaa Eldin Moustafa <wa.moust...@gmail.com> пише: > 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. >>> >>
