Add initial pass at our governance model - #2
Conversation
|
LGTM, but I'd also add a MAINTAINERS file that lists the actual maintainers with voting rights |
|
The problem with keeping a MAINTAINERS file up to date is that it might change ever week based on attendance - which will be kind of annoying. I plan on having the spreadsheet automagically calculate who has rights (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bw5s9sC2ggYyAiGJHEk7xm-q2KG6jyrfBy69ifkdmt0/edit#gid=0 for my working prototype), so the info will be easily available. I guess we could create a MAINTAINERS.md file that just say "go look at the [link] spreadsheet". |
Signed-off-by: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
|
I could write an Fn func that grabs names from spreadsheet and updates MAINTAINERS.md. you know, dogfooding working group projects. :) |
| * Any motion that does not have "unanimous consent" will result in a formal | ||
| vote. See [Voting](#voting). | ||
|
|
||
| ## PRs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to raise an issue that the PR addresses first?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know some groups like to do that, but I think its kind of silly overhead to require an issue. I'm personally ok with someone opening a PR and explaining why they think the change is needed directly in the PR. I think having it all in one spot anyway ;-)
|
On last week's call @markpeek agreed to suggest some wording around how to deal with multiple people from the same company. |
Signed-off-by: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
|
Voting section has been updated -please review for today's call. |
|
Per today's call this was approved by unanimous consent |
Signed-off-by: Doug Davis dug@us.ibm.com