I found some small style problems that were left over from when the proposal was rst. After those are fixed, +1 to merging from me.
David On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-6 >> 5d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R284 >> >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
