Update maintainers and contributors guides #420
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This addes the contributors and maintainer's guides to this repo so that we have consistent rules across projects for how they are run. This was the original intent but these files were referenced but not copied to all the new repos. Signed-off-by: Michael Crosby <crosbymichael@gmail.com>
| or `Fixes #XXX`, which will automatically close the issue when merged. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Sign your work | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we remove this from the README.md ?
|
Also, should we add these to the file list in the |
|
Ya, i can make those updates |
|
and the CI failure was on dangling white-space
(i opened #421 becuase travis was not clear about that) |
|
|
||
| ## How are decisions made? | ||
|
|
||
| Short answer: with pull requests to the project repository. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this really true? We often ask contributors to send emails instead of PRs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Decisions is mean generally here. We usually ask for an email on design discussions but decisions are made on PRs. s/decisions/changes/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might help clarifying that. Our real decision process is still unclear, but once a decision is made, opening a PR to make a change should work.
|
@crosbymichael Can you make this PR more relevant to this project? |
|
@vishh the general idea is that we have a set of contributor documents and a maintainers guide that is applicable for all the OCI projects so that we have a level of consistency between all of them. Some may need edits for their specific stuff but I think we can do better by finding some common ground that we all agree on. These were copied from the runc repo and it has been operating well under these things. However, how about we work on these documents here https://github.com/opencontainers/project-template Lets make them more generic so that they can apply to all the projects but also make sure that they are complete in documenting how the projects are and should be run. After we fix the issues we can propagate the changes back to all the repos. |
|
SGTM! On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Michael Crosby notifications@github.com
|
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2016
The old wording did not mention email discussion before working up changes, which we often recommend [1,2] to avoid contributors sinking a lot of work into a pull request that ends up being rejected because of a fundamental design issue. The new wording mentions that and also: * Removes the overly compact short answer to avoid confusion [3]. The section is not so long that it needs a one-line summary. * Distinguishes between in-PR votes (LGTM/Rejected) and merging/closing the PR. * Mentions GOVERNANCE for management changes. * Uses an enumerated list instead of "Step N" text. * Uses the README's recommended one line per sentence. [1]: CONTRIBUTING.md#conventions [2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2016
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2016
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is
now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion
I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three
days.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2016
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is
now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion
I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three
days.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2016
The old wording did not mention email discussion before working up changes, which we often recommend [1,2] to avoid contributors sinking a lot of work into a pull request that ends up being rejected because of a fundamental design issue. The new wording mentions that and also: * Removes the overly compact short answer to avoid confusion [3]. The section is not so long that it needs a one-line summary. * Distinguishes between in-PR votes (LGTM/Rejected) and merging/closing the PR. * Mentions GOVERNANCE for management changes. * Uses an enumerated list instead of "Step N" text. * Uses the README's recommended one line per sentence. [1]: CONTRIBUTING.md#conventions [2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2016
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is
now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion
I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three
days.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 9, 2017
The old wording did not mention email discussion before working up changes, which we often recommend [1,2] to avoid contributors sinking a lot of work into a pull request that ends up being rejected because of a fundamental design issue. The new wording mentions that and also: * Removes the overly compact short answer to avoid confusion [3]. The section is not so long that it needs a one-line summary. * Distinguishes between in-PR votes (LGTM/Rejected) and merging/closing the PR. * Mentions GOVERNANCE for management changes. * Uses an enumerated list instead of "Step N" text. * Uses the README's recommended one line per sentence. [1]: CONTRIBUTING.md#conventions [2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 9, 2017
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is
now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion
I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three
days.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 10, 2017
The old wording did not mention email discussion before working up changes, which we often recommend [1,2] to avoid contributors sinking a lot of work into a pull request that ends up being rejected because of a fundamental design issue. The new wording mentions that and also: * Removes the overly compact short answer to avoid confusion [3]. The section is not so long that it needs a one-line summary. * Distinguishes between in-PR votes (LGTM/Rejected) and merging/closing the PR. * Mentions GOVERNANCE for management changes. * Uses an enumerated list instead of "Step N" text. * Uses the README's recommended one line per sentence. [1]: CONTRIBUTING.md#conventions [2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 10, 2017
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is
now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion
I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three
days.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2017
The old wording did not mention email discussion before working up changes, which we often recommend [1,2] to avoid contributors sinking a lot of work into a pull request that ends up being rejected because of a fundamental design issue. The new wording mentions that and also: * Removes the overly compact short answer to avoid confusion [3]. The section is not so long that it needs a one-line summary. * Distinguishes between in-PR votes (LGTM/Rejected) and merging/closing the PR. * Mentions GOVERNANCE for management changes. * Uses an enumerated list instead of "Step N" text. * Uses the README's recommended one line per sentence. [1]: CONTRIBUTING.md#conventions [2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2017
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is
now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion
I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three
days.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2017
The old wording did not mention email discussion before working up changes, which we often recommend [1,2] to avoid contributors sinking a lot of work into a pull request that ends up being rejected because of a fundamental design issue. The new wording mentions that and also: * Removes the overly compact short answer to avoid confusion [3]. The section is not so long that it needs a one-line summary. * Distinguishes between in-PR votes (LGTM/Rejected) and merging/closing the PR. * Mentions GOVERNANCE for management changes. * Uses an enumerated list instead of "Step N" text. * Uses the README's recommended one line per sentence. [1]: CONTRIBUTING.md#conventions [2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2017
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is
now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion
I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three
days.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 7, 2018
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is
now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion
I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three
days.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 7, 2018
Hooray institutions ;). Because GOVERNANCE is already making
decisions with a 2/3 vote, there's no reason to appeal to the TOB (the
old 2/3 vote for appeal is now sufficient for making the decision
outright).
All current OCI Projects have adopted the GOVERNANCE docs [1]
(although runC has yet to actually merge them into its repository) so
I think this approach is portable while the Chief Maintainer approach
was not [2]. Taking the runC maintainer subset of that vote (just to
be sure the doc applies to runC):
+7: Aleksa Sarai, Alexander Morozov, Daniel Dao, Mrunal Patel, Qiang
Huang, Rohit Jnagal, Victor Marmol
-0
opencontainers#2: Andrey Vagin, Michael Crosby
and 7/9 > 2/3.
This also avoids the strange behavior where a 2/3 vote of maintainers
could approve a new maintainer, the Chief Maintainer could veto, and
the same 2/3 vote could appeal that veto to the TOB. And it's nice to
have a single set of rules for project-management issues, and not a
five "business days" window for new maintainers one-week window for
other management issues. The ten-day window for maintainer removal is
now a shorter seven, but with the call for earlier private discussion
I don't think it's worth special-casing just to get an extra three
days.
Also:
* Remove "across the maintainers of the project". "respect across"
seemed awkward ("respect between" is closer but still not quite
right). In any case, the next sentence makes it clear with "trust
one another", so I think the bit I removed was superfluous.
* Replace "depend on and trust" with "depend on", because building
trust was already mentioned in that sentence, and I don't see any
semantic distiction between "depend on and trust" and "depend on".
* Replace "make decisions" with "act". Same meaning, fewer letters ;).
* Adjust the paragraphs I touched to the README's recommended one line
per sentence.
* Fixed "point of views" -> "points of view".
[1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/x-Oh3PDz1Y8/q7t2IseVAwAJ
Subject: [project-template adopted]: Merge 56abe12 (+13 -0 opencontainers#5)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPwMcF__WD32cV6dHgHt8=F6qFw+XFGw4iQK9LGi_QWsg@mail.gmail.com>
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment)
Subject: Update maintainers and contributors guides
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 8, 2018
The old wording did not mention email discussion before working up changes, which we often recommend [1,2] to avoid contributors sinking a lot of work into a pull request that ends up being rejected because of a fundamental design issue. The new wording mentions that and also: * Removes the overly compact short answer to avoid confusion [3]. The section is not so long that it needs a one-line summary. * Distinguishes between in-PR votes (LGTM/Rejected) and merging/closing the PR. * Mentions GOVERNANCE for management changes. * Uses an enumerated list instead of "Step N" text. * Uses the README's recommended one line per sentence. [1]: CONTRIBUTING.md#conventions [2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 8, 2018
The old wording did not mention email discussion before working up changes, which we often recommend [1,2] to avoid contributors sinking a lot of work into a pull request that ends up being rejected because of a fundamental design issue. The new wording mentions that and also: * Removes the overly compact short answer to avoid confusion [3]. The section is not so long that it needs a one-line summary. * Distinguishes between in-PR votes (LGTM/Rejected) and merging/closing the PR. * Mentions GOVERNANCE for management changes. * Uses an enumerated list instead of "Step N" text. * Uses one line per sentence. [1]: CONTRIBUTING.md#conventions [2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#420 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This addes the contributors and maintainer's guides to this repo so that
we have consistent rules across projects for how they are run. This was
the original intent but these files were referenced but not copied to
all the new repos.
Signed-off-by: Michael Crosby crosbymichael@gmail.com