I'll start a VOTE thread... On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 11:03 AM Brandon Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> >
