Alright, so I guess it's https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/spaces/CASSANDRA/pages/158863606/Cassandra+Project+Governance
What I would add is a new entry: 4. Code modifications made solely to existing tests require one non-author +1 committer vote. On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 7:29 PM Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems like everyone agrees with the basic idea here. The question is > whether we actually need to codify anything/change wikis, etc. If we did, > what would be the best place to do that? > > I have never +1’d a patch without reviewing it, and I guess I’m curious > about whether I’m alone here 😅 > > > On Sep 24, 2026, at 6:33 PM, Francisco Guerrero <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Sounds reasonable to me. +1 > > > >> On 2026/09/24 23:02:03 Patrick McFadin wrote: > >> +1 > >> > >> Patrick > >> > >>>> On Sep 24, 2026, at 3:29 PM, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> but it would be confusing if we introduce requirements that are > inconsistent with those we already have. > >>> Seems like the requirements we already have are confusing to many now, > given some of the chatter on the other thread. > >>> > >>> I’m +1 to the above relaxations. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2026, at 5:40 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > >>>> To reiterate, currently there is no requirement for committers to > review a contribution. The policy is worded quite precisely: at least one > *contributor* must review a change, and at least two committers must > approve the change (one of whom may be the author). > >>>> > >>>> The approval may consist of trust that the contributor's experience > is appropriate for the patch in question. > >>>> > >>>> I am open to the thrust of the refinement, but it would be confusing > if we introduce requirements that are inconsistent with those we already > have. > >>>> > >>>> On 2026/09/24 19:44:34 Caleb Rackliffe wrote: > >>>>> I'm spinning this out of the other thread we have going right now on > LLM > >>>>> usage... > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd like to propose that we slightly change the way we deal with > incoming > >>>>> patches that only touch existing tests. > >>>>> > >>>>> *Current Policy (and please correct me if I've misinterpreted our > current > >>>>> rules)* > >>>>> > >>>>> Fixes from non-committer contributors that only touch existing tests > in an > >>>>> effort to stabilize them still require 2 committer reviewers before > commit. > >>>>> > >>>>> *Proposed Policy* > >>>>> > >>>>> Fixes of this type from non-committer contributors only require one > >>>>> committer review. CI verification of the effectiveness of the fix is > still > >>>>> required, etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>>> > >>>>> That's it. I'm just looking for ways to make small, reasonable > changes that > >>>>> might free up committer bandwidth for some of the larger, more > >>>>> earth-shaking things happening right now. > >>>>> > >>>> > >> >
