Skip to content

doc: remove confusing reference in governance doc #9073

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
Trott wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

doc: remove confusing reference in governance doc #9073

Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7b6deb1
doc: remove confusing reference in governance doc
Trott Oct 13, 2016
b8b9cdb
squash: explain consensus
Trott Oct 14, 2016
70aadbd
squash: hyphenate for clarity
Trott Oct 14, 2016
8bf88a9
squash: clarifications
Trott Oct 14, 2016
99553ff
nit: punctuation/capitalization
Trott Oct 19, 2016
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
15 changes: 11 additions & 4 deletions GOVERNANCE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -36,10 +36,17 @@ Collaborators. All pull requests must be reviewed and accepted by a
Collaborator with sufficient expertise who is able to take full
responsibility for the change. In the case of pull requests proposed
by an existing Collaborator, an additional Collaborator is required
for sign-off. Consensus should be sought if additional Collaborators
participate and there is disagreement around a particular
modification. See [Consensus Seeking Process](#consensus-seeking-process) below
for further detail on the consensus model used for governance.
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:
Copy link
Contributor

@thefourtheye thefourtheye Oct 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this sound okay? I am finding it very difficult to understand the double negatives and the meaning of this sentence

Copy link
Member Author

@Trott Trott Oct 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It can probably be improved. Let me try to revise it...

Copy link
Member Author

@Trott Trott Oct 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would this be better?

If one or more Collaborators oppose a proposed change, then the change can not
be accepted unless:


* 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
Copy link
Contributor

@thefourtheye thefourtheye Oct 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What would be considered as approval by CTC? I mean any of the CTC signs off or more than one?

Copy link
Member Author

@Trott Trott Oct 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

should be used only after other options (especially discussion among
the disagreeing Collaborators) have been exhausted
Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell Oct 19, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

minor nit: Can you capitalize the first letter in the bullet points and add appropriate punctuation at the end of each.

Copy link
Member Author

@Trott Trott Oct 19, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, done.


Collaborators may opt to elevate significant or controversial modifications to
the CTC by assigning the ***ctc-agenda*** tag to a pull request or issue. The
Expand Down