On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The Git project currently operates according to informal, unstated norms > when it comes to making bigger-picture decisions (above and beyond > individual patches and patch series). Document these norms so that > newcomers to the project can learn what to expect. > > This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to > decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to > describe how the project currently operates today. Thanks for writing this. I, for one, would love to see the process evolve a little to account for the scale of work coming through the list on any given day. However, that's a discussion that will be easier to have once we have the status quo written and checked in. Last week I attended Open Source Summit North America, and one recurring theme I heard at many of the talks about project governance and scalability was that every type of governance comes with cost attached; one of the costs of a model as informal as ours is that it takes time to explain over and over how we make decisions, as long as it's not documented. I actually see this quite often, when we have someone write in to the list or the Discord asking for permission to implement a feature, or whether a given change would be welcome. So, if nobody disagrees with the content of this document, I think we should absolutely merge it. It will be great for newbies to see what they're getting into, and for me to send to my boss to explain why my predictions for my team's patches landing are so broad. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> See review below. I had a few small nits, but with or without those changes, it looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > This doc represents my impression of how the community operates. I have > obviously not been around as long as many other community members, so I > would welcome feedback if you feel that this misses or misrepresents any > aspect of how we make decisions. > > One particular blind spot for me is how the Project Leadership Committee > operates, or if that's even relevant to this doc. > > Unfortunately, I will be away from the list for a few days for $LIFE > reasons, but I will try to address feedback promptly once I get back. > > Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Documentation/Makefile | 1 + > 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..80fc732551 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ > +Decision-Making Process in the Git Project > +========================================== > + > +Introduction > +------------ > +This doc aims to describe the current decision-making process in the Git > +project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to > +describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any > +particular process or changes to the current process. > + > +We want to describe how the project makes larger-scale decisions. We won't be > +discussing how decisions are made for individual patches or patch series, > +although the process is similar at a high level. Nit: "We want to" still sounds like something that goes in the patch description. If I imagine this doc checked in, I'd rather it says "that is, it describes how..." or "This doc attempts to describe how..." As you mentioned elsewhere, it seems like the process isn't so different between smaller patches and large-scale designs - does that mean it makes more sense to take out the large-scale disclaimer and leave notes on which steps you can omit for simpler proposals? > + > +Starting a Discussion > +--------------------- > +Proposals are made on the mailing list. Because members of the Git community > +have a wide variety of experience, backgrounds, and values, proposals are > +expected to include as much context as possible. Could it be worth making this more explicit? Or pointing to similar guidelines from SubmittingPatches? For example, I think we like to understand where the need is coming from - is there a user base in mind for this large-scale thing? Is it solving a scaling problem for you somehow? These are things we ask for from cover letters, too. > + > +If the proposer is aware of individuals with an interest in the topic being > +discussed, it is polite to CC them on the proposal to make sure they are aware > +of the discussion. What about "it is a good idea to CC them on the proposal to make sure they're aware of the discussion, and let them know you're interested in their thoughts"? Or some other way to point out that CCing people this way also increases the chance of a lively discussion? For later, > + > +Engaging in Discussion > +---------------------- > +Once a proposal has been made, the community will discuss it on-list. While the > +maintainer will often participate in discussions, it is not the maintainer's > +responsibility to guide discussion; the proposer and any other interested > +parties are expected to stay engaged in the discussion and ensure progress is > +made. Yes, I like very much that this is called out. I don't think this is something someone would expect - not all project maintainers operate this way, so we should document it for our project. > + > +Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is > +expected that all discussion will adhere to the Code of Conduct rules. I wouldn't mind seeing an explicit link to the CoC in our source tree from here. > + > +Other Discussion Venues > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > +Occasionally decision proposals are presented off-list, e.g. at the semi-regular > +Contributors' Summit. While higher-bandwidth face-to-face discussion is often > +useful for quickly reaching consensus among attendees, generally we expect to > +summarize the discussion in notes that can later be presented on-list, so that > +the full community has opportunity to engage in discussion. Could you say why? Between the lines and with my experience with the project I can understand that that's because the mailing list is The place for communication, and all official decisionmaking happens here. But since we're documenting how decisions happen, it seems worth calling out explicitly that they must happen on this list. It could also be nice to link to one of the great note writeups from contributor summits past as an example. > + > +Finalizing a Decision > +--------------------- > +After a suitable period of time has passed, the maintainer will judge whether or > +not consensus has been reached. If so, the consensus decision will be > +implemented. Otherwise, discussion may continue, or the proposal may be > +abandoned. I think this captures the status quo. But I'm also left saying, "indefinitely?! how do we tell people 'thanks, but no thanks'?" Maybe something we can discuss after this patch lands :) > + > +In general, it is not the maintainer's responsibility to implement any > +particular decision. For decisions that require code changes, it is often the > +case that the original proposer will make the necessary changes to implement the > +decision, although it is also common for other interested parties to provide an > +implementation. > + > +For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to > +the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes. > diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile > index 3f2383a12c..a04da672c6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/Makefile > +++ b/Documentation/Makefile > @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases > API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt))) > SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS) > > +TECH_DOCS += DecisionMaking > TECH_DOCS += ReviewingGuidelines > TECH_DOCS += MyFirstContribution > TECH_DOCS += MyFirstObjectWalk > > base-commit: 436d4e5b14df49870a897f64fe92c0ddc7017e4c > -- > 2.44.0.683.g7961c838ac-goog > >
