On 01/08/2016 08:18 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
I think we just need to come up with rules for considering a
platform to have voting ability before merging the patch.
I totally agree, except for the "just" part. ;) IMO a platform is much
like a feature in terms of requiring commitment/accountability,
community agreement on cost/benefit, and so on. You can see a lot of
that in the feature-page template.
https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs-specs/blob/master/in_progress/template.md
That might provide a good starting point, even though some items won't
apply to a platform and others are surely missing. It's new territory,
after all. Also, I believe the bar for platforms should be higher than
for features, because a new platform multiplies our test load (and
associated burdens) instead of merely adding to it. Also, new features
rarely impact all developers the way that new platforms do.
Nobody should be making assumptions or unilateral decisions about
something as important as when it is or is not OK to block all merges
throughout the project. That needs to be the subject of an explicit and
carefully considered community decision. That, in turn, requires some
clearly defined cost/benefit analysis and resource commitment. If we
don't get the process right this time, we'll end up having this same
conversation yet again, and I'm sure nobody wants that.
Agree here.
Pranith - can you please help come up with a governance process for
platforms in consultation with Jeff and Emmanuel? Once it is ready we
can propose that in the broader community and formalize it.
Thanks,
Vijay
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
