+1 100% agreement WOW - The Evolve Way of Working (WoW) process (Disciplined Agile (DA))
Please, Please do not assume TLA[1] are known. We do not all spec the same language here. -----Original Message----- From: Alin Jerpelea [mailto:jerpe...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 12:41 AM To: dev@nuttx.apache.org Subject: Re: Simple Workflow Proposal If we want things to move we need an initial workflow or we risk to be stuck for weeks debating for a way forward. This simple workflow should move us forward so that we can improve it over several iterations. There are many new things for all of us and no WOW is tested and known to be our WOW. We must try new things to be able to move forward in the new structure. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 18:08 Brennan Ashton <bash...@brennanashton.com> wrote: > I did not call for a vote because I did not think I could as I'm just a > community member, I would like my proposal formally voted it on as is. > > > As for the two concerns that I saw raised. > > 1) The timeline. Two weeks over the holiday to come to a formal agreement > is going to be tough and I also don't think just because we have a path > forward people will stop caring about proposing a better solution. From > what I'm seeing the longer term proposal will likely get into the weeds of > tooling around CI email patches etc... These take weeks to settle on. I > trust the intentions of the people in the project and do not see a need to > bind them to a timeline to build this out. > > 2) Why cut corners. Personally I don't see this as cutting corners I > think > this will in practice get us 90% of the way there and get us back into a > cadence of improving the software. I trust the project members will use > judgement within the structure and will actively move the project along to > better structure. > > > Thanks, > Brennan > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 7:08 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Again, is this a formal vote? it is not clear to me. Did someone in > > the PPMC call a vote? There is not [VOTE] in the message title? > > > > Just point of order which I do not know the answer too. Brennan is not > > yet listed as a PPMC member or a as a committer (but he should be and, > > hopefully, will be). Can non-PPMC members calls votes that are binding > > on the PPMC? Just to be clear, I think that someone in the PPMC should > > call the vote with [VOTE] in the title so that is is clear if we are > > castubg a binding vote or not for something are not? Or are we just > > agreeing in principle or not? > > > > Are these binding votes? We need to clarify what is going on. > > > > I think we should stop the habit of using +1 just to indicate we agree > > with something and we need to enforce the use of [VOTE] in the title so > > that we know this is a binding vote. > > > > On 12/22/2019 7:57 AM, Xiang Xiao wrote: > > > +1. > > > It's impotant to let people start the contribution. > > > The committer could/should do more work to ensure the correction in > > > review process before the automation tool is ready. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Xiang > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 8:57 PM David Sidrane <davi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> This works! > > >> > > >> On 2019/12/22 02:05:56, Brennan Ashton <bash...@brennanashton.com> > > wrote: > > >>> I really want to let people to contribute (myself included) ASAP so > > >>> I > > was > > >>> to propose this as an option to get going and can be amended later. > > >>> I > > know > > >>> it does not resolve all the issues, but offers what I think is a > > reasonable > > >>> avenue to get started. > > >>> > > >>> Submit a PR on GitHub against master if it is approved by one > commiter > > >>> (that did not propose it) > > >> This is key! We need the eyes (and possibly the hands) of the > > >> subject > > matter experts, reviewing, commenting and possible fixing submissions. > > >> > > >>> it can be merged. The approval is done via the > > >>> GitHub approval system. > > >> +1 > > >>> A commiter may create a PR on behalf of a patch submitted to the > > mailing > > >>> list. > > >> +1 > > >>> Commiters can ask for others to review or approve. But at the end > > >>> of > > the > > >>> day they are the ones who approve and merge. > > >> +1 > > >>> We can and should amend this later, it is likely not enough long > term. > > >>> > > >>> Could people vote if they think this is fine to start. If you don't > > agree > > >>> just note that and we can review where we are at. > > >>> > > >>> --Brennan > > >>> > > > > >
