This is looking really good, thank you, Toni. Excellent work. On 2025/02/05 14:49:21 Toni Rikkola wrote: > 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 > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org
