Toshiya, Good comments as always.
Yes I think we should modify RTC to be the exact same thing we use right now. So that means there should be two approvals. Looks like the Apache documentation and the other ByLaws where I copied the "Lazy Consensus" definition are not aligned. And indeed revert should happen ASAP, so with the tool set we have RTC would be best. I will hold back on editing these in. We have a comment for the proposal in the wiki page that needs to be cleared out. Depending on the result we get, I might have to make bigger alterations to the doc. Proposal Apache KIE ByLaws - Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/Proposal+Apache+KIE+ByLaws?focusedCommentId=345377540#comment-345377540> I will report the result and causes of the result on this thread when possible. Toni On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:15 AM Toshiya Kobayashi < toshiyakobaya...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you very much for the proposal, Toni! > > Some clarifications: > > * Code Change (GitHub) -> RTC "Requires one binding votes by a contributor > who has reviewed the change. Review includes running the code if possible." > > Does it mean we can merge a PR with one approval? (while we have been > merging a PR with two approvals so far) > > * Lazy Consensus "Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no binding > -1 votes. -1 is a veto." > > I think Lazy Consensus is generally "0 vote means accepted" ( > https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus). Why do you > define it like this? > > * Reverting a Breaking Code Change (Github) -> Lazy majority > > I guess you meant we can quickly revert a change when it breaks a > build. However, Lazy majority (Requires three binding +1 votes and ...) > sounds slow. Maybe it can also be RTC? > > Regards, > Toshiya > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 5:31 PM Toni Rikkola <rikk...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I got queries about what Challenging an Action is. I improved the > > definition to make it more clear that it is only a tool to add an > > discussion/proposal step for actions that went directly to vote. > > > > Toni > > > > On 2025/03/13 11:14:40 Toni Rikkola wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Link to what the proposed wiki page would look like: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/Proposal+Apache+KIE+ByLaws > > > > > > I am skipping the discussion step since I am sure the majority of us > > > want this feature and I was unsure on how to lead that discussion > > > without actually having a demo in the proposal wiki page. > > > > > > I would like to get feedback especially on the votes. I started with > +1, > > > +0.5, 0. -0.5, -1. If you take a look at what the other teams do they > > > have every possible combination. For example +1, +0, -0, -1 is the most > > > popular one. Few even only allow +1 for a person willing to help on the > > > task. > > > > > > Some ByLaws alter the default Apache voting time. Sometimes each action > > > has a different timer. Not sure if we want to take this route. > > > > > > When this goes to vote, only the binding votes count. Meaning the 10 > > > PPMC members. I would like to recommend these people to participate in > > > the proposal if they disagree. > > > > > > I also welcome any member to participate. This is in a way our > community > > > work contract. > > > > > > Please give feedback. Either by DM ( you can be anonymous, I will > > > reference the discussion here ) or reply to this thread. > > > > > > Toni Rikkola > > > Contributor > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > >
