+1 Looks good to me!
A couple of minor thoughts - it might be nice to have separate subdirectories on the wiki for the different proposal states, to easily see what state the proposals are in. One thing that isn't visible in these states - is the proposal actively under development? It might be nice to clearly distinguish between proposals that are under development vs. finished. -Dan On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:31 PM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> wrote: > Having the RFC discussion in a pull request was by far the most > controversial aspect of this proposal. Because we were unable to come to an > agreement, we should stick with the smallest change to what we are doing > already. Therefore I moved the proposal to the wiki where all existing > proposals are. > > Please take a look there > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Lightweight+RFC+Process > > > and let's discuss here if any changes should be made. Otherwise I intent to > move the proposal to `active` tomorrow. > > Thank you everyone! > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:26 PM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I am proposing a new process that is aimed to address some of the issues > > we've recently encountered in making collective decisions. The process I > am > > proposing would use pull request to discuss proposals. > > > > To demonstrate the process, I submitted my proposal as a pull request > > <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3706>. While this email has the > > [DISCUSS] label, I ask to *please keep all discussions on the PR > > <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3706>* to test drive the proposed > > process. There already is a healthy discussion on the PR, including if > the > > process in general should take place via a PR. > > > > Thanks! > > >
