#1 I had a chat with Francisco in DMs. Trying to keep the actual voting out of the thread since it is a huge topic for us and for that reason we should isolate the problem and solve it in a dedicated thread.
#2 A QA community member has made some good points on what they would expect a proposal to include related to the Definition of Ready and Done. I have not done any changes based on that, but will do and inform this thread on every wiki page update. The goal is to have required and preferred topics similar to JEP 2: JEP Template <https://openjdk.org/jeps/2> #3 As we can all see the Documentation jumped directly from discussion to vote. While the discussion part was moderated by Toshiya and he worked on a proposal base in discussion, the vote now has added content in it. Since it is a vote and also a comment in the thread from the vote lead says discussion has ended, giving a vote is the only way to interact. Skipping a step is still possible with the guideline I am proposing here. Problem with a missing proposal step is, no community interaction can be taken after the assignees have agreed to act on something. You can not change what is in the vote. It is a take it or leave it situation. You can leave a statement and perhaps the lead of the vote does a revote. The current proposal has several items in it, with a separate proposal thread each problematic item could be voted separately, then adjusting the proposal with the vote results. Taking all the steps results in a more open community. Increasing the feeling that we are actually a community that works together. Going directly to a VOTE or in the worst case to a PR with a significant change is easily seen as blackmailing and it adds friction. The steps do not slow you down. What I am doing here right now would take less than a week if I was in a hurry with this. FYI [PROPOSAL][VOTE] is used by many teams, in this guideline it would be just a [VOTE] (I don't think it matters how you write it). Toni On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:17 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > Im king of puzzled > So, giving a -1 on a valid technical ground is "blocking attitude", > requires a counter proposal and a commitment of resources > And it seems that a -1 on a "procedure formality" (unless every PR requires > a proposal in the list) is a valid argument, does not require a counter > proposal and non commitment of resources. > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:47 PM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Ok, so that decision followed the path ticket->PR without mailing list. > The > > PR counts as a voting location and Porcelli is giving a -1 with a valid > > argument. > > It is always possible to escalate to ML and that is what Porcelli is > > asking. > > > > I did not yet include voting rules in this proposed guideline, but that > -1 > > needs to be challenged if there are intentions to invalidate it. > > The -1 is due to a difference we are planning to have compared to Apache > > practice so the mailing list is a good place to continue on that. > > > > Toni > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Toni, > > > > > > One question, how do we manage to make all the aspects we are > discussing > > > here with the day by day reality of how this community is really > working? > > > See > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1749#issuecomment-2630540808 > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:48 AM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Sure Jason. I don't think anything I wrote here is original. Apache > > > > provides the minimum and then projects like Kafka add more on top of > > > that. > > > > I will find the different takes on this and reference them in the > wiki > > > > page. > > > > > > > > Toni > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jason Porter < > lightguar...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have not given this a thorough read through just yet, but on a > > quick > > > > > read through, I'm not seeing any references for things. I think we > > need > > > > to > > > > > stay grounded with what the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) has in > > > place > > > > > (I know it isn't a lot) in general, and we can also pull ideas from > > > other > > > > > Top Level Projects (TLPs). I know this proposal idea for example is > > > used > > > > in > > > > > a couple of places: Groovy, Kafka, and probably others, I know for > > sure > > > > > those two use a similar system. I don't think it makes sense for us > > to > > > > > reinvent the wheel if we don't need to. It also helps others that > are > > > > > familiar with the way things are done in other projects to > understand > > > > > where/why we made decisions. > > > > > > > > > > Toni, would you be able to add references to the proposal wiki > page? > > > > > > > > > > On 2025/01/31 08:20:00 Toni Rikkola wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a proposal I created based on the discussion that > happened > > in > > > > > > [DISCUSSION] Discussion, proposal and voting process-Apache Mail > > > > Archives > > > > > > < > https://lists.apache.org/thread/tzqhh1qg9yr7v6wk0bwnk921y15yr0qk> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is time to eat my own dog food and prove discussion is not > just > > a > > > > > group > > > > > > of people dreaming. This proposal will lead to a vote and action > > will > > > > be > > > > > > taken if the vote is approved. > > > > > > > > > > > > The goal I have is to form community guidelines and this is the > > first > > > > > item > > > > > > and step we need to agree on. > > > > > > Everyone is welcomed to give feedback and suggest additionals, > > > removal, > > > > > > fixing a type or change of wording. Preferred way is to use this > > > list, > > > > > but > > > > > > if you direct message me I will reference the request here > > > anonymously. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will edit the wiki page based on requests I see fitting and > then > > > pass > > > > > it > > > > > > to voting once I feel it is good enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and > > > vote > > > > - > > > > > > Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+Community+guideline+to+define+discussion%2C+proposal+and+vote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > Toni Rikkola > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
