I want to share some ideas on a possible proposal process. It's inspired by processes in the Foreman, Python, and Django communities along with several discussions I've had with core and community users. This is written as a concrete proposal, but it is 100% changeable.
I'm doing the meta thing and using the process I'm proposing to propose the process. The proposal is here [0]. It's unmerged (not the process) because I suspect we'll want a dedicated repo. This proposal, if adopted, is still a living document (like Python PEP 0001) so even if its approved it would still be an evolving document. Feedback and collaboration is welcome! [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50 All the best, Brian On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:01 PM, David Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > I also like the idea of using plan.io for our RFCs. The only thing that > github or etherpad offers over plan.io is the ability to edit/update the > RFC. If the RFC is in the body of the story/task in Redmine, then I think > it can only be edited by admins. Maybe we can use the comments or not worry > about editing the RFC though. > > There were also some other points brought up this past week about > RFCs—mostly around workflows. One important thing I forgot to consider is > how to accept RFCs. Should we vote on them? Or perhaps try to arrive at > some sort of consensus? > > > David > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Ina Panova <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think all mentioned options could be used, but we need to have a >> starting point. Something that would track a discussion for a long time. >> And i lean towards ---> open a story/task (as a starting point). >> Having a story/task opened we can always reference it in mail discussion >> or etherpad. >> Why i prefer to have all/most of the discussion happen on the story/task? >> Because i cannot guarantee that i will not miss somehow the email or >> etherpad. I actually often find myself trying to dig through dozens of >> mails to find the right one. Same with the etherpads :) >> Because i receive notifications when someone adds a comment on the >> task/story, even after one month or two. This does not happen with >> etherpad, and i actually will not see the new comments/ideas until i will >> check the pad by myself. >> Periodically. From time to time. Remembering the right pad number, and of >> course i do not remember it, so i will need to dig into my mails to find it >> out. >> >> >> >> -------- >> Regards, >> >> Ina Panova >> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >> >> "Do not go where the path may lead, >> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:59 PM, David Davis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> One of the things that came up in our retrospective is that we don’t >>> have a formal way to propose changes to our codebase and processes (aka >>> RFCs). This was motivated in part by the recent discussion on merging >>> forward commits on our pulp-dev mailing list. >>> >>> I'd like to maybe discuss a way we can propose RFCs and then document >>> this process in our docs. It sounds like there has already been some >>> discussion about how to handle RFCs so I apologize coming into this without >>> having any background. >>> >>> Thinking through RFCs, I see two things to address. First is the actual >>> format of the RFC. I see some RFCs in plan.io but it doesn’t seem like >>> there’s a standard way of formatting an RFC. Should there be? For >>> reference, here's the template for foreman RFCs. I think it might serve as >>> a good starting point: >>> >>> https://github.com/theforeman/rfcs/blob/master/0000-template.md >>> >>> Secondly, there’s the question of where to discuss and archive RFCs. >>> Some possible options: >>> >>> 1. Open a story or task on plan.io >>> 2. Use a GitHub repo to store and discuss RFCs (e.g. >>> https://github.com/theforeman/rfcs) >>> 3. Write the RFC on an Etherpad and once accepted, open a plan.io issue. >>> 4. Just send out RFCs to the mailing list >>> 5. Something else? >>> >>> I was thinking we could also use the mailing list in addition to options >>> 1-3 by sending out an email pointing people to the actual RFC. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> David >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
