It is probably worthwhile to codify our “policy” so that it’s not confused later. Simply adding something about lazy consensus model to the CONTRIBUTING.md (which I realize we are missing, already working on that) might be useful.
I could take a stab at the wording based on my earlier reply about this if no one else wants to. -jake > On May 31, 2019, at 12:44 PM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > I have learned that other than the required quarterly report to the board, > just about everything else about being an Apache project is just guidelines, > not hard requirements. I was confused because we do adhere rigorously to > every other voting guideline on > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html; now I understand that is by > choice and not because Apache “requires” it. > > Thank you for all the responses on this thread. It seems like the consensus > is that we’ve struck an appropriate balance already (and in particular regard > to reviews, that we can trust committers to seek an appropriate amount of > review based on the nature and scope of a PR). > > I will not seek a vote on enforcing a requirement of 1 (or more) reviews > before a PR can be merged, since some valid scenarios were raised where 0 > reviews prior to merge could be appropriate. > >> On May 31, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 31, 2019, at 8:52 AM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>> Apache requires 3 reviews for code changes. Docs and typos likely would not >>> fall under that heading. >> >> Where is this listed as a requirement? The link you sent before offered >> guidance on common policies within the organization. >> >
