Also - would everyone like the doc opened up for comments so we can have localized feedback and discussion there? I think this ML thread might get hard to follow rapidly but I want to be mindful of apache policies surrounding things happening on the ML. I think closing out w/final time window and link here should be sufficient for records.
Thoughts? On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 5:38 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > On the topic of CEP's, I'd advocate for us trying a couple/few out first > and seeing what uncertainties arise as being troublesome and see if we > can't codify a best practice around them. To date we've had only a couple > CEP's actively move and a few in draft pre-move pending more progress on > 4.0 so I don't think we have enough signal on how they evolve to know what > we might want to address through this doc. Does that make sense? > > 24 hours to close down lazy consensus does feel pretty quick by default; I > think a default 72 hour with flexibility based on the topic (i.e. like > adding testing to the CEP guideline; super non-controversial) we can just > run with things and revert if they're off. > > > Speaking of revert - that's one thing that was a real eye opener for me > personally philosophically in the past few weeks; git revert exists for a > reason and if we all changed our posture to periodic reverts being a > healthy thing rather than shameful or contentious, we can all move a lot > faster together in trust and revert when mistakes invariably happen. Not > that we should start ninja'ing in 40k patches of course, but hopefully the > point makes sense and resonates in terms of it being a continuum we're > perhaps quite extreme on culturally as a project. > > And we all have a sense for when something's more controversial, so we > have CEP's to lean on. I dunno, makes sense in my head. :) > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:13 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > A link to the current draft of the governance doc is here: >> > >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wOrJBkgudY2BxEVtubq9IbiFFC3d3efJSj9OIrGcqQ8/edit# >> > >> > The doc is only 2 pages long; if you're interested in engaging in a >> > discussion about how we evolve and collaborate as a project, please take >> > some time to read through the doc, think through things, and engage on >> this >> > thread here. >> >> >> >> Thanks Benedict and Josh. This is an awesome initiative to put out in the >> open and include everyone in. >> >> My question is around the CEP lifecycle, how one is established and how it >> exits (or moves into a real implementation stage). I guess that is an >> evolving discussion, and also depends on the nature of the individual CEP. >> But it raises the questions of when do we apply the vote. For example I >> can >> imagine two votes on a CEP: once to accept an CEP to start in earnest, and >> a second time on the finalised CEP that the working group has >> finalised. As CEPs >> can evolve to quite a different place from their original idea. Maybe we >> don't need that entry vote, as the document implies, but I'm not entirely >> sure about that: i think some initial exposure and discussion can be >> valuable to prevent wasted adventures. >> >> regards, >> Mick >> >
