> On 27. Sep 2017, at 12:06, Oleg Nenashev <o.v.nenas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If there is a consensus in the mailing list, no strict need to involve the > governance meeting from the technical PoV. The only purpose of the governance > meeting here is to... > • Act as a arbiter when there is no agreement in the mailing list
Right, but we can just start a vote on the mailing list, too. Especially if half the people (or at least half the continents) would need to do that anyway. > • To legitimate the decisions, so that the proposal (accept JEP for > review, assign delegates) becomes an official decision by the Jenkins > project. It may prevent conflicts in the following cases: > • JEP gets rejected, the submitter blames delegates due to a > conflict of interest Should have chosen a different delegate then (remember, author chooses -- but I expect e.g. not choosing you for remoting will raise lots of eyebrows and will make people look closely). > • JEP gets accepted, somebody chimes later and grumbles that > people ignored his feedback and didn't select him as one of the delegates If it's feedback by a single individual and everyone else is fine, that's consensus building in action. Consensus doesn't mean decisions need to be unanimous. (Which is why I'd prefer to have rules specifying the security officer can veto for security reasons, and infra team lead can veto for infra reasons, but I trust that those concerns would be addressed in the process we're designing right now -- and if not, we'll adapt the process as needed.) If the delegate actually ignores concerns brought by a majority of reviewers, I'd reconsider the eligibility of the delegate for future JEPs. > So my point about the Governance Meeting is rather a protective one, it > protects both community and delegates. In some cases it will be "process just > for the process" for sure. Currently the Governance Meeting is IMHO the only > legitimate institution in Jenkins (no "technical steering committee", board > election fun), so that's why I propose to route the approval through the > governance meeting. If we're agreeing that this involvement of the project meeting would be a rare occurrence handling exceptional cases (if it's going to be 10% of JEPs we're still terrible), sure. But it still seems similar to adding rules for what should happen when we just start insulting or doxing each other. As in: if this happens, we have larger problems. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/C58BB914-52C2-4CFB-B7D3-64F575E582BB%40beckweb.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
