Ok I added references for reasoning and how others are doing this. I also refactored the template for a proposal step. The request came from a QA community member and this would help with the development-testing process.
If nothing else comes up. I will open a vote on Monday, that way we get office days for voting time. Toni On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 10:59 AM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> wrote: > #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 >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
