After more discussion on the PR, I've pushed what I think are the final revisions. These include moving it to a dedicated repo in the Pulp organization. As such the PR is now here: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/1
If there are any last comments please let me know, otherwise I plan to merge this tomorrow. It would be nice if someone approved this PR. Even after being merged, this is still a starting point which we can use to refine the process itself over time. Thanks to everyone who read or gave input. -Brian On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > I pushed another version based on feedback. The changes came as a new > commit so you can see them there. I have 2 areas that I want to discuss > before merging. > > == proposed change 1 == > I want really want beautifully readable proposals on pulpproject.org. > That being said, I think we should pull that out of this proposal and > instead go with: > * A dedicated repo with this proposal's text as a README at the root. This > would effectively adopt @mhrivnak's comment here[0]. > * We can figure out how to get those onto pulpproject.org as a separate > effort > > == proposed change 2== > Also I want to have the proposals live as a pull request until they are > decided on. The current proposal has them being merged regularly. This > would reduce friction by having proposals be created/revised without a > single core dev needing to be involved. Also collaborators can push to each > other's branches with github permissions so collaboration is still very > possible. In fact @daviddavis did that with this meta PR. This part is > basically written here [1] as a change. > > [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/# > discussion_r103085714 > [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff- > 65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R284 > > Comments and ideas are welcome either via e-mail or on the PR. > > Thanks! > Brian > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The things that I like about this proposal: >> >> - The proposals are always merged so the community can reference them in >> the future even if the proposal is not adopted. I like learning from >> history. >> - Revisions to the proposal are additional commits stored in git. Having >> a record of changes can be valuable as the proposal lives on and evolves. >> - All the proposals are available on pulpproject.org or some other >> wesbsite for anyone to see - including search engines. >> >> I am not too thrilled about the discussion living separate from the >> proposal, but I am a fan of our mailing lists. I would be happy with this >> proposal being merged as is so we can announce it for voting and/or further >> discussion on pulp-dev list. >> >> -Dennis >> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I pushed a new version based on feedback on the PR. It outlines several >>> alternatives that we should consider along with downsides. >>> >>> What about leaving it as a pull request for longer? >>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R277> >>> What about using Github for discussion? >>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R292> >>> We could store the PEPs in Redmine. Why aren't we using Redmine? >>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R262> >>> >>> There are also Downsides >>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R250> >>> of this proposal. >>> >>> My opinion is a +1 to leaving it as a pull request for longer to allow >>> more autonomy for creation and revision of proposals. Also, we can >>> additionally use Github for feedback, but that email threaded discussion >>> should also be allowed to include a broader input from users who don't live >>> in Github like most of us do. Both of these not-yet-done simple rewrites >>> would remove these from the list of alternatives and incorporate them into >>> the proposal itself. I'm happy to make such changes with input from others. >>> >>> Also in the Unresolved Questions >>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R309> >>> section having an acronym or initialization of a name for these would be >>> nice. >>> >>> It would be great to get feedback by 00:00 UTC on Tuesday the 28th >>> (that's 7pm on Feb 28th). I'll try to be more responsive with the edits >>> also. >>> >>> Thanks for the input so far. >>> >>> -Brian >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Elyezer Rezende <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I would like to comment about the C4 [1] which is "the Collective Code >>>> Construction Contract (C4), [...], aimed at providing an optimal >>>> collaboration model for free software projects". >>>> >>>> It does not mention about creating RFCs specifically but provides some >>>> guidelines that may help when implementing them. >>>> >>>> [1] https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/ >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Elyézer Rezende >>>> Senior Quality Engineer >>>> irc: elyezer >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
