This is a DISCUSS thread, for the record should we have a VOTE? Kind Regards, Brandon
On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 8:57 PM Caleb Rackliffe <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>
