The Git project currently operates according to an informal consensus-building process, which is not currently well-described. Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to help inform newcomers to the project. 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. Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Changes in V2: * Split doc to treat patch series discussion as the general case, with larger discussions (with or without patches) as special situations. * Add links to example discussions for certain situations * Add link to contributor summit notes * Add link to Code of Conduct * Add justification for keeping discussion on-list * Add paragraph about explicit negative consensus * Minor reword of advice on when to CC experts * Minor reword of doc intro to avoid indecisive text Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Documentation/Makefile | 1 + 2 files changed, 123 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..55fa3e2185 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ +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. + +Here we document how the project makes decisions for general patch series, and +for larger-scale discussions (with or without patches). + + +General Patch Series +-------------------- + +Starting a Discussion +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +For most changes, discussions are started by sending a patch series to the list. +There is rarely any need to discuss or ask for approval prior to sending +patches; the merit of both the general idea behind your change and the code to +implement it will be discussed at the same time. + +NOTE: For general guides on creating and sending a patch series to the list, see +link:SubmittingPatches.html[SubmittingPatches] and +link:MyFirstContribution.html[MyFirstContribution]. The remainder of this +doc will focus more on what to expect from the list discussion. + +Because members of the Git community have a wide variety of experience, +backgrounds, and values, series are expected to include as much context as +possible. + +If the proposer is aware of individuals with an interest in the subject of the +change, it is helpful to CC them on the proposal to increase the likelihood of +receiving constructive feedback. + +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. + +Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is +expected that all discussion will adhere to the link:../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md[Code +of Conduct] rules. + +Finalizing a Decision +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +If the maintainer judges that positive consensus has been reached on a topic, +they will merge the series, usually to the 'next' integration branch. After a +suitable period of time for testing by the community, changes are merged from +'next' into 'master', from which official releases are tagged. + +If consensus has not been reached, discussion may continue, or the proposal may +be abandoned if no one continues discussion. More rarely, explicit negative +consensus may be reached if the community feels that the series is not suitable, +in which case the series should be dropped and discussion ended. + +There are no strict guidelines used to judge when consensus has been reached, +but generally we expect all points of feedback to have been addressed with +either a fix or an explanation on why no change is necessary. + + +Larger Discussions (with patches) +--------------------------------- +As with discussions on a general patch series, starting a larger-scale +discussion often begins by sending a patch or series to the list. This might +take the form of an initial design doc, with implementation following in later +iterations of the series (for example, +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx/[adding +unit tests] or +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx/[config-based +hooks]), or it might include a full implementation from the beginning. In either +case, discussion progresses as described above until consensus is reached or the +topic is dropped. + + +Larger Discussions (without patches) +------------------------------------ +Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series. +These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of +even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended, +policy-oriented discussions (examples: +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust] +or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@xxxxxxxxxx/[improving +submodule UX]). In either case, discussion progresses as described above for +general patch series. + +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation, +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any +official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to +restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation +that can be more easily debated. + +If consensus around a decision has been reached but no implementation provided, +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 follow up with a patch series, although it is also common for +other interested parties to provide an implementation (or parts of the +implementation, for very large changes). + +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. + + +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. For an +example, see the thread +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/AC2EB721-2979-43FD-922D-C5076A57F24B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/[Notes +from Git Contributor Summit, Los Angeles (April 5, 2020)] by James Ramsay. + +We prefer that "official" discussion happens on the list so that the full +community has opportunity to engage in discussion. This also means that the +mailing list archives contain a more-or-less complete history of project +discussions and decisions. 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 -- 2.45.0.rc1.225.g2a3ae87e7f-goog
