Add governance and releases docs #15

philips · 2016-07-12T18:14:10Z

This is a proposed process for approval of new releases of
specifications and projects from the OCI.

The creation of this process is designed to clarify how a release gets
created and who needs to sign off.

This is a proposed process for approval of new releases of specifications and projects from the OCI. The creation of this process is designed to clarify how a release gets created and who needs to sign off.

I got some feedback from folks that some motivation early in the document might be helpful for why the process encourages regular communication.

@cyphar

Requiring applications wait 1 week to get feedback before making a release, removing "business day" wording @cyphar, @stevvooe, and @wking were in the discussion.[1] [1] opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

@stevvooe

Requiring the _minimum_ process for a major release to be 3 rcs and a final release. This will establish a _minimum_ timeline of 1 month to get to a release assuming zero required changes. @stevvooe, @wking were in this discussion. opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

@diogomonica

Changing the release goal for projects to a "SHOULD monthly release" from the original bi-weekly. @diogomonica, @stevvooe, @mrunalp, @RobDolinMS were in that discussion opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

Fix up the language around REJECTs so it is easier to understand. The basic premise is that a release may continue with REJECTs if 2/3 of the maintainers vote to make the release. But, the maintainers SHOULD discuss and allow time for any REJECTs to become LGTMs. Spread over two discussions: [1](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/15/files/bdfa70d70f093146bc730be2576586ec8ed57cca#r66519789) and [2](https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/15/files/bdfa70d70f093146bc730be2576586ec8ed57cca#r66668148)

@wking

Based on discussion with @wking and @stevvooe https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/15/files/bdfa70d70f093146bc730be2576586ec8ed57cca#r66543381

@wking

The intention of the voting members language is to ensure that releases can proceed even if people are unresponsive, on vacation, etc without ambiguity. This is similar to how the TOB operates. Identified by @wking here: opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

Based on discussion with wking and mrunalp participating and Stephen Day acking in IRC: opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

@stevvooe

This addresses @stevvooe's concern about GitHub issues being the only medium for discussion of a reject. @wking and @philips were involved in this discussion: opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

@wking

Projects have a happy path and a slow path. The happy path is a release with maintainers agreeing and a timeout. The slow path has rejects and quorums. Based on discussion with @wking opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

@wking

Instead of being prescriptive provide suggestions instead for how to provide release REJECTS feedback. Based on feedback from Stephen Day and @wking.

@wking

Fixup qourum typos based on feedback from @wking.

Avoid duplication by collecting common ideas (e.g. list-based voting) in their own sections. After this reshuffling, it became apparent that there were no special application restrictions, so I added additional language to motivate the specification-specific additions. Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>

philips/tob#1 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>

Reported by Tianon opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

Expand a bit more information about the security@ alias and who is involved in a security sensitive release.

This is useful for more than release approval. For example, it's useful for updating the project governance document itself [1]. I've also tried to address Jason's other points, except for defining a "breaking change" (since that is tied up in [2]). New wording about motions and whatnot is pulled from Roberts' [3], see proposing a motion (RRoO I.4, p33) and seconding a motion (RRoO I.5, p36). The subject templates I just made up on my own after thinking over the initial proposal emails (e.g. [4]). I also pulled in the one-sentence pattern [5] since I was touching so much. [1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us/Zx1JUStXBAAJ Subject: Re: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:58:58 -0700 Message-ID: <CAFi6z1HAkKbnMoAXubyGusQJ_MromgpQ4qHCQ3R9_NwZNYBX5w@mail.gmail.com> [2]: opencontainers/tob#16 [3]: http://archive.org/details/Robertsrulesofor00robe_201303 [4]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/dev/ik3MIDWq4Us Subject: Vote Required: OCI Image Spec Release Process Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:56:40 +0000 Message-ID: <CAD2oYtNnW+hP7Q3NPBdYHOKfigU0pvbgcphKPhRB=ZfQBwX8VA@mail.gmail.com> [5]: opencontainers/tob#15 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>

Split files into governance and releases and outline the maintainers of the GOVERNANCE doc itself. Signed-off-by: Brandon Philips <brandon.philips@coreos.com>

vbatts · 2016-07-18T23:40:09Z

@philips is this ready for review?

wking · 2016-07-18T23:45:01Z

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 04:40:09PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

@philips is this ready for review?

This is being actively voted on 1. If you have issues with it, you
should start campaining for REJECTs in that thread.

vbatts · 2016-07-18T23:49:30Z

oh right. I didn't put the two together.

philips · 2016-07-20T16:55:12Z

LGTM

@caniszczyk can you LGTM this so we can merge it. The vote passed: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ

caniszczyk · 2016-07-20T18:13:35Z

LGTM

wking · 2016-07-20T18:25:18Z

This series is not consistently Signed-off-by. Maybe squash down to a single commit before merging? I'm fine if I don't get listed as a co-author, but you can add my Signed-off-by to the squashed commit.

philips · 2016-07-21T20:10:16Z

@wking I would rather just merge this as-is even though the signed-off-by's are missing. I can certainly squash. @caniszczyk do you mind merging it as-is?

wking · 2016-07-21T20:14:11Z

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 01:10:16PM -0700, Brandon Philips wrote:

@wking I would rather just merge this as-is even though the
signed-off-by's are missing.

Since it's just your commits without the Signed-off-by's, maybe the
lawyers (do we actually have any OCI lawyers recommending the DCO and
Signed-off-by?) would be happy if you Signed-off-by the merge
commit?

caniszczyk · 2016-07-21T22:29:24Z

Next step is to copy these over to runc/runtime-spec/image-spec repos

wking · 2016-07-21T22:37:03Z

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:29:24PM -0700, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:

Next step is to copy these over to runc/runtime-spec/image-spec
repos

Where are we with #4? It would be nice if after an all-maintainer
vote we could tally a particular Project (e.g. runtime-spec), see that
the motion passed with those maintainers, run:

$ git pull git://github.com/opencontainers/project-template.git

in runtime-spec and push it to master without bothering with
second-round PRs. But that's not going to work unless everything in
project-template has been approved by the target Project's
maintainers.

I'd garbled the old '#release-approval' target in c732cc2 (project-governance: Make voting more generic, 2016-06-24, opencontainers#15). Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>

I'd missed this in c732cc2 (project-governance: Make voting more generic, 2016-06-24, opencontainers#15). Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>

Brandon Philips and others added 18 commits June 28, 2016 18:27

proposals: add release-approval-process

593b8f0

This is a proposed process for approval of new releases of specifications and projects from the OCI. The creation of this process is designed to clarify how a release gets created and who needs to sign off.

proposal: release-approval-process add some motivation

889639a

I got some feedback from folks that some motivation early in the document might be helpful for why the process encourages regular communication.

proposals: release approval process to one week for apps

7e11601

Requiring applications wait 1 week to get feedback before making a release, removing "business day" wording @cyphar, @stevvooe, and @wking were in the discussion.[1] [1] opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

proposals: release approval process: one month pre-releases

445ee2d

Changing the release goal for projects to a "SHOULD monthly release" from the original bi-weekly. @diogomonica, @stevvooe, @mrunalp, @RobDolinMS were in that discussion opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

proposals: release approval process: clarify utility of GitHub

c15c0e2

Based on discussion with @wking and @stevvooe https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/15/files/bdfa70d70f093146bc730be2576586ec8ed57cca#r66543381

proposals: release approval process: add quorum language

267f916

Based on discussion with wking and mrunalp participating and Stephen Day acking in IRC: opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

proposals: release approval process: add language about mailing list

eecc4fe

This addresses @stevvooe's concern about GitHub issues being the only medium for discussion of a reject. @wking and @philips were involved in this discussion: opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

proposals: release approval process: add information to projects

f2148b6

Projects have a happy path and a slow path. The happy path is a release with maintainers agreeing and a timeout. The slow path has rejects and quorums. Based on discussion with @wking opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

proposals: release approval process: improve REJECT feedback

89afeeb

Instead of being prescriptive provide suggestions instead for how to provide release REJECTS feedback. Based on feedback from Stephen Day and @wking.

proposals: release-approval-process: fixup additional typos

775db84

Fixup qourum typos based on feedback from @wking.

release-approval: Add non-spec unanimous quorum reduction

c340e73

philips/tob#1 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>

proposals: release-approval-process fix a grammar thing

af1013d

proposal: fix a typo

be10456

Reported by Tianon opencontainers/tob#15 (comment)

proposals: release approval process explain security@ email

86b3087

Expand a bit more information about the security@ alias and who is involved in a security sensitive release.

philips mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2016

proposals: add release-approval-process opencontainers/tob#15

Closed

philips closed this Jul 12, 2016

philips reopened this Jul 12, 2016

philips force-pushed the add-governance-and-releases-docs branch from c9a01f5 to c0774ac Compare July 12, 2016 18:23

wking and others added 2 commits July 12, 2016 11:24

GOVERNANCE and RELEASES: split the files

56abe12

Split files into governance and releases and outline the maintainers of the GOVERNANCE doc itself. Signed-off-by: Brandon Philips <brandon.philips@coreos.com>

philips force-pushed the add-governance-and-releases-docs branch from c0774ac to 56abe12 Compare July 12, 2016 18:24

caniszczyk merged commit 52dbb39 into opencontainers:master Jul 21, 2016

wking mentioned this pull request Jul 23, 2016

Add governance and release process docs opencontainers/runtime-spec#521

Merged

wking mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2016

Cleanup the spec a bit to remove WG/git text that's not really part of the spec opencontainers/runtime-spec#626

Merged

wking mentioned this pull request Dec 1, 2016

GOVERNANCE: Fix "motion to release" link target (to RELEASES.md) #23

Open

wking mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2017

GOVERNANCE: Fix "release" -> "motion" typo #30

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add governance and releases docs #15

Add governance and releases docs #15

philips commented Jul 12, 2016 •

edited

Loading

vbatts commented Jul 18, 2016

wking commented Jul 18, 2016

vbatts commented Jul 18, 2016

philips commented Jul 20, 2016 •

edited by caniszczyk

Loading

caniszczyk commented Jul 20, 2016 •

edited

Loading

wking commented Jul 20, 2016 via email

philips commented Jul 21, 2016

wking commented Jul 21, 2016 •

edited

Loading

caniszczyk commented Jul 21, 2016

wking commented Jul 21, 2016

Add governance and releases docs #15

Add governance and releases docs #15

Conversation

philips commented Jul 12, 2016 • edited Loading

vbatts commented Jul 18, 2016

wking commented Jul 18, 2016

vbatts commented Jul 18, 2016

philips commented Jul 20, 2016 • edited by caniszczyk Loading

caniszczyk commented Jul 20, 2016 • edited Loading

wking commented Jul 20, 2016 via email

philips commented Jul 21, 2016

wking commented Jul 21, 2016 • edited Loading

caniszczyk commented Jul 21, 2016

wking commented Jul 21, 2016

philips commented Jul 12, 2016 •

edited

Loading

philips commented Jul 20, 2016 •

edited by caniszczyk

Loading

caniszczyk commented Jul 20, 2016 •

edited

Loading

wking commented Jul 21, 2016 •

edited

Loading