Thanks for the comments. I'm considering the vote failed given the veto,
and will draft another proposal.
Isabel, thanks for bringing it up. I will update the grace period to 72
hours in a new proposal.
Chris, regarding the trigger, I think it should just be based on the latest
commit on the PR (I will explain more below), and then I can add a term to
recommend not to merge PR if another request for changes is received during
Nan, indeed I think we committers should avoid forcing a change through,
and reasonable amount of explanation should be given. The difficulty (and
blessing) is the lack of authority for performing such approval. The
intended situation is when one committer approves and the other disapproves.
Chris and Marco, given that everything is publicly accessible, I don't
think committer or requester should be obliged to additional informing
duty. On github, one would be automatically subscribed to the PR for any
further changes if one makes a comment or review. I agree that it's the
shared responsibility of the change requester and the merging committer's
to drive consensus. I also agree that it would be courteous for a committer
to ping commenter to reach consensus, and it's the right thing for me to
do. Still, I think it should be the commenter's responsibility to follow up
on the prior, potentially outdated comment when needed. Veto is preserved
in that a committer can close a PR at any time, and can revert changes or
vetoing releases that contain the change.
Lastly, I'd like to use the remainder of this thread to drive towards
consensus on the revision needed for the proposal. In that, I welcome both
further discussion on related points and counter proposals. Thank you.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:43 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1 (binding) based upon: It's not clear what triggers the timer or how a
> veto is preserved.
> I'd like to argue that any comment on a PR by a committer should get some
> sort of response, even if it is "bugger off", and the ability to veto must
> be preserved (ie set review status as 'request changes')
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:18 AM, Isabel Drost-Fromm <isa...@apache.org>
>> Am 2. Februar 2018 01:20:31 MEZ schrieb Sheng Zha <zhash...@apache.org>:
>> >Specifically, for merging PRs, if there are open review comments and
>> >changes afterwards didn’t address the comments, we should have a
>> >grace-period of 24 hours for commenters to respond to the changes.
>> Typical waiting period for lazy consensus would be 72 hours IIRC so ppl
>> in other timezones/ on holiday get a chance to check as well.
>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.