doc: remove confusing reference in governance doc#9073
doc: remove confusing reference in governance doc#9073Trott wants to merge 5 commits intonodejs:masterfrom
Conversation
At the CTC meeting today, Sakthipriyan noted that there was a link to the CTC consensus material from the pull request consensus material. The link was confusing because the CTC consensus material is meeting-specific, which does not apply to pull requests. I have removed that link.
nodejs-github-bot
added
the
meta
Trott
added
doc
|
LGTM |
thefourtheye
left a comment
thefourtheye
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This makes the text unambiguous, but now how the consensus is reached has to be explained I think.
|
while I agree that it's confusing as is, I'm not sure if this change helps. |
|
I agree we do need some additional info on what consensus seeking means. |
|
OK, I added new material to explain our process. This hopefully addresses the concerns of @jasnell and @mhdawson. Please take a look. I chose to eliminate the word |
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| * discussion and/or additional changes result in no Collaborators objecting to | ||
| the change; previously-objecting Collaborators do not necessarily have to | ||
| sign-off on the change, but they should not be opposed to it | ||
| * the change is escalated to the CTC and the CTC approves the change; this |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would be considered as approval by CTC? I mean any of the CTC signs off or more than one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess for something as significant as resolving an impasse on a controversial change, we should require a vote. I'll update the text to say that. We can always change the rules if that turns out to be onerous. But it seems that this comes up relatively infrequently.
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| for sign-off. | ||
|
|
||
| If there is disagreement among Collaborators about whether a proposed change | ||
| should be accepted, then the change may not be accepted unless: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this sound okay? I am finding it very difficult to understand the double negatives and the meaning of this sentence
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It can probably be improved. Let me try to revise it...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would this be better?
If one or more Collaborators oppose a proposed change, then the change can not
be accepted unless:
|
Made some clarifications based on @thefourtheye's questions and pushed. PTAL |
|
@nodejs/ctc |
|
LGTM |
rvagg
force-pushed
the
master
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c133999 to
83c7a88
Compare
|
LGTM |
GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| sign-off on the change, but they should not be opposed to it | ||
| * the change is escalated to the CTC and the CTC votes to approve the change; | ||
| this should be used only after other options (especially discussion among | ||
| the disagreeing Collaborators) have been exhausted |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor nit: Can you capitalize the first letter in the bullet points and add appropriate punctuation at the end of each.
At the CTC meeting today, Sakthipriyan noted that there was a link to the CTC consensus material from the pull request consensus material. The link was confusing because the CTC consensus material is meeting-specific, which does not apply to pull requests. I have removed that link and replaced it with a text explanation. PR-URL: nodejs#9073 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
|
Landed in 15b4642 |
At the CTC meeting today, Sakthipriyan noted that there was a link to the CTC consensus material from the pull request consensus material. The link was confusing because the CTC consensus material is meeting-specific, which does not apply to pull requests. I have removed that link and replaced it with a text explanation. PR-URL: #9073 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
At the CTC meeting today, Sakthipriyan noted that there was a link to the CTC consensus material from the pull request consensus material. The link was confusing because the CTC consensus material is meeting-specific, which does not apply to pull requests. I have removed that link and replaced it with a text explanation. PR-URL: #9073 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
At the CTC meeting today, Sakthipriyan noted that there was a link to the CTC consensus material from the pull request consensus material. The link was confusing because the CTC consensus material is meeting-specific, which does not apply to pull requests. I have removed that link and replaced it with a text explanation. PR-URL: #9073 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <myles.borins@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
6 participants
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
doc meta
Description of change
At the CTC meeting today, Sakthipriyan noted that there was a link to
the CTC consensus material from the pull request consensus material. The
link was confusing because the CTC consensus material is
meeting-specific, which does not apply to pull requests. I have removed
that link.
/cc @nodejs/ctc @thefourtheye
I don't think this needs to go on the CTC agenda because it is not a change to our governance process, but if anyone else feels differently, feel free to add the
ctc-agendalabel.