Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

[David Roe]

Sorry for the delay in responding; I have had much time today.

The code of conduct committee's intention in changing the status on some of
the disputed tickets was to note ways in which participants had not
followed our previous standards for setting review status.  At this point,
given the policy that just passed, I personally don't see any practical
difference between the tickets currently being set to positive review and
set to needs review, since either status can be updated to the other based
on the current voting tally.

Voting ends on the new membership for the committee shortly (please send in
your votes now if you've been waiting).  I'd like to ask the new committee
if they have an opinion on how to handle the situation; personally I'm fine
with Kwankyu's suggestion of changing all positive review tickets to needs
review as a way to have changes made by others be in a positive direction.
David

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:29 PM Kwankyu Lee  wrote:

> ... if there is any difference in process between the PRs currently set to
> "positive review" and those currently set to "needs review"?
>
>
> In my opinion, all disputed PRs waiting for voting should be reset to
> "needs review" status.
>
> Kwankyu
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c3532c5d-acdf-4dda-a0ac-385719c0f1c4n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n7pW%3DMhZpbOOcamjWBNDB-OJYtnuyWPmQmcrFvWW5MCA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

[Kwankyu Lee]

... if there is any difference in process between the PRs currently set to 
"positive review" and those currently set to "needs review"?


In my opinion, all disputed PRs waiting for voting should be reset to 
"needs review" status. 

Kwankyu

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c3532c5d-acdf-4dda-a0ac-385719c0f1c4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

[Matthias Koeppe]

David,
Would you clarify if there is any difference in process between the PRs 
currently set to "positive review" and those currently set to "needs 
review"?



On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 10:28:12 PM UTC-7 David Roe wrote:

> The vote has passed.  There are currently 36 open disputed PRs 
> .
>
> Given the extensive comments on some of these PRs, I would agree that we 
> should follow some version of Karl-Dieter's suggestion.  In particular, 
> while the author of the PR remains automatically in favor, I'll ask that 
> people who gave positive reviews affirm their continued support for the PR 
> by commenting (or forwarding their vote to someone who can comment).  With 
> such a large set of disputed tickets, while we give people a chance to make 
> their opinions known please wait until the end of the day Friday (say, 
> US/Pacific time) before changing status to positive review or needs review 
> as described in the policy.  Volker will hopefully not merge any of these 
> disputed tickets for a little while while we work through the new policy.
>
> If there are snags in the process, we can work through them here on 
> sage-devel.
>
> Also note that I do not anticipate this new process to be a magic bullet 
> that resolves all of our disagreements that underlie these disputes.  We 
> will be announcing the results of the vote for new members of the Sage Code 
> of Conduct committee soon, and I hope that the new committee can discuss 
> ways to continue to resolve the disagreements.  In the meantime, please be 
> respectful of each other, both here and on github.
>
> I am not going to have time to encode this policy into our Developer's 
> Guide for a couple weeks; anyone else is welcome to do so and I'd be happy 
> to offer a review.
> David
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 1:44 PM kcrisman  wrote:
>
>>
>> It would be helpful for anyone explicitly voting +/-1 to either link to a 
>> previous comment or make a new actual comment (beyond the vote) to 
>> clarify.  This is particularly if there have been new commits since the 
>> initial dispute, because for an outside reviewer it can be hard to untangle 
>> all the various comments before the disputed tag is placed on the PR.  
>>
>> (Which would apply to any emailed requests as well.) 
>>
>> -- 
>>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/bb229d60-d204-4d04-bc3d-2c88515a389dn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/38750e75-b29e-4090-8ad7-2e082ff71320n%40googlegroups.com.