Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[Needs SC vote before merging] SC: update collection inclusion procedure #1256

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 14, 2024
Merged

[Needs SC vote before merging] SC: update collection inclusion procedure #1256

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
00d7292
SC: update collection inclusion procedure
Andersson007 Apr 9, 2024
31a8fa5
Change as requested
Andersson007 Apr 16, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 11 additions & 5 deletions docs/docsite/rst/community/steering/community_steering_committee.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -146,13 +146,19 @@ When reviewing community collection `inclusion requests <https://github.com/ansi

#. For a collection to be included in the Ansible community package, the collection:

* MUST be reviewed and approved by at least two persons, where at least one person is a Steering Committee member.
* For a Non-Steering Committee review to be counted for inclusion, it MUST be checked and approved by *another* Steering Committee member.
* Reviewers must not be involved significantly in development of the collection. They must declare any potential conflict of interest (for example, being friends/relatives/coworkers of the maintainers/authors, being users of the collection, or having contributed to that collection recently or in the past).
* MUST be reviewed and approved as compliant with the requirements by at least two Steering Committee members.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is now stricter than the original requirements (one SC person + another community person, which could be SC but doesn't have to be). Is this intentional?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think it's practically stricter as now there must be two SC approvals and how we can approve w/o actually reviewing a collection even selectively?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Checking a review (and quickly looking at very few files in the collection) is IMO less work than doing a partial review of the collection.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@felixfontein i believe it's the same or even less work for the SC member who's checking (who's looking at the code and docs primarily anyway) but there will be no need for the second full review by the third person - so it's actually a significant simplification


#. After the collection gets two or more Committee member approvals, a Committee member creates a `community topic <https://forum.ansible.com/new-topic?category=project&tags=community-wg>`_ linked to the corresponding inclusion request. The issue's description says that the collection has been approved by two or more Committee members and establishes a date (a week by default) when the inclusion decision will be considered made. This time period can be used to raise concerns.
* At least one of the reviews checks compliance with the entire checklist.
* All subsequent reviews can focus only on compliance with documentation and development conventions.

#. If no objections are raised up to the established date, the inclusion request is considered successfully resolved. In this case, a Committee member:
* Reviewers must not be involved significantly in development of the collection. They MUST declare any potential conflict of interest (for example, being friends/relatives/coworkers of the maintainers/authors, being users of the collection, or having contributed to that collection recently or in the past).

#. After the collection gets two Committee member approvals, a Committee member creates a `community topic <https://forum.ansible.com/new-topic?category=project&tags=community-wg>`_ linked to the corresponding inclusion request. The issue's description says that the collection has been approved by the Committee and establishes a date (a week by default) when the inclusion decision will be considered made.

* The inclusion automatically gets suspended if the Committee members raise concerns or start another inclusion review within this time period.
* When there are no more objections or ongoing inclusion reviews, the inclusion date gets prolonged for another week.

#. If the inclusion has not been suspended by the established date, the inclusion request is considered successfully resolved. In this case, a Committee member:

#. Declares the decision in the topic and in the inclusion request.
#. Moves the request to the ``Resolved reviews`` category.
Expand Down