Re: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread Salz, Rich
Nicely worded.  It doesn’t go as far as I’d like, but it’s a step.


AW: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread Dr. Matthias St. Pierre


> > IMHO an important clarification needs to be made: The rule should not be 
> > about
> > _prohibiting_ double approvals. It should only be about _counting_ them.
> > I would not deprive people of the right to state their opinions.
> 
> Isn't that an implementation detail?

You're right, it should be. But current discussions and current practice show 
that Pauli
avoids to approve on GitHub when Shane is involved and vice versa. IMHO it 
should
be valid to approve (and also recorded in the commit message), even if the vote 
is not
counted. Because it documents that both have reviewed the code.

Matthias



Re: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread Richard Levitte
On Fri, 24 May 2019 11:21:18 +0200,
Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
> 
> >   In considering approvals, the combined approvals must come
> >   from individuals who work for separate organisations.
> >   This condition does not apply where the organisation is the
> >   OSF or OSS.
> 
> 
> IMHO an important clarification needs to be made: The rule should not be about
> _prohibiting_ double approvals. It should only be about _counting_ them.
> I would not deprive people of the right to state their opinions.

Isn't that an implementation detail?

-- 
Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/


Re: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread Tim Hudson
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:34 PM Matt Caswell  wrote:

> On 24/05/2019 10:28, SHANE LONTIS wrote:
> > It doesn’t stop us both reviewing a PR. That doesn’t mean we both need
> to approve.
>
> Right...but in Matthias's version if you raise a PR, and then Pauli
> approves it,
> then you only then need to get a second committer approval. Otherwise you
> would
> need to get an OMC approval.
>

It works that way in the original wording too - which is more simply stated
IMHO.
You choose which approvals you combine. If there are three - select which
ever two make the set you want to "combine" as such.

I also didn't see a need for a separate OMC approval if a committer
submitted something and a same-organisation OMC member approved it - it
just needs one more -  so the combination of approvals can be made from
not-the-same-organisation.

Tim.


Re: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread Matt Caswell
On 24/05/2019 10:28, SHANE LONTIS wrote:
> It doesn’t stop us both reviewing a PR. That doesn’t mean we both need to 
> approve.

Right...but in Matthias's version if you raise a PR, and then Pauli approves it,
then you only then need to get a second committer approval. Otherwise you would
need to get an OMC approval.

That sounds ok to me.

Matt

> 
> 
>> On 24 May 2019, at 7:21 pm, Matthias St. Pierre > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >   In considering approvals, the combined approvals must come
>> >   from individuals who work for separate organisations.
>> >   This condition does not apply where the organisation is the
>> >   OSF or OSS.
>>
>>
>> IMHO an important clarification needs to be made: The rule should not be 
>> about
>> _prohibiting_ double approvals. It should only be about _counting_ them.
>> I would not deprive people of the right to state their opinions.
>>
>> Also, if Shane has already approved, then Pauli should still have the right
>> to approve, since his approval counts as OMC approval and Shane's not.
>>
>> How about using a formulation like the following?
>>
>>     In considering approvals, approvals from individuals being
>>         employed by the same third party company or organization should
>>         be counted as a single approval. If one of the individuals is
>>         an OMC member, the combined approval counts as an OMC approval.
>>     This condition does not apply where the organisation is the
>>     OSF or OSS.
>>
>>
>> An editorial comment: I think that the amendmend should be made inside the
>> unordered list, not following it.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_web_blob_master_policies_committers.html-23L72-2DL78=DwIDaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE=b1aL1L-m41VGkedIk-9Q7taAEKIshTBwq95Iah07uCk=DYHGYucybgbeMHQn9pS8SBhh_dvJkYrDgKu9gU2l9H4=jT3VTidhpkkMAwUuiu_JgqW9mBpD4PP-3Qc8D3KZDdU=
>>
>> Apart from that: Tim, could you (or someone else of the OMC) please raise a 
>> PR
>> for your proposal? That would make it easier to discuss the details.
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>
> 


Re: proposed change to committers policy

2019-05-24 Thread SHANE LONTIS
It doesn’t stop us both reviewing a PR. That doesn’t mean we both need to 
approve.


> On 24 May 2019, at 7:21 pm, Matthias St. Pierre 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >   In considering approvals, the combined approvals must come
> >   from individuals who work for separate organisations.
> >   This condition does not apply where the organisation is the
> >   OSF or OSS.
> 
> 
> IMHO an important clarification needs to be made: The rule should not be about
> _prohibiting_ double approvals. It should only be about _counting_ them.
> I would not deprive people of the right to state their opinions.
> 
> Also, if Shane has already approved, then Pauli should still have the right
> to approve, since his approval counts as OMC approval and Shane's not.
> 
> How about using a formulation like the following?
> 
> In considering approvals, approvals from individuals being
> employed by the same third party company or organization should
> be counted as a single approval. If one of the individuals is
> an OMC member, the combined approval counts as an OMC approval.
> This condition does not apply where the organisation is the
> OSF or OSS.
> 
> 
> An editorial comment: I think that the amendmend should be made inside the
> unordered list, not following it.
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_web_blob_master_policies_committers.html-23L72-2DL78=DwIDaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE=b1aL1L-m41VGkedIk-9Q7taAEKIshTBwq95Iah07uCk=DYHGYucybgbeMHQn9pS8SBhh_dvJkYrDgKu9gU2l9H4=jT3VTidhpkkMAwUuiu_JgqW9mBpD4PP-3Qc8D3KZDdU=
> 
> Apart from that: Tim, could you (or someone else of the OMC) please raise a PR
> for your proposal? That would make it easier to discuss the details.
> 
> Matthias
> 
>