I think I've resolve remaining concerns. I will start a VOTE thread on merging in a little bit.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 4:30 PM Anton Okolnychyi <aokolnyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >>>> >>>
