Updated "Decision Making" section to reflect current uncertainty #14
Conversation
|
Yes, we still have to decide how we make decisions. I think that a lot of the stuff in there still applies, and could stay. For example, everything in the "In general, all pull requests must:" list seems like it's worth keeping. |
| ###Peer Review | ||
|
|
||
| Anyone may participate in peer review which is expressed by comments in the pull request. Typically reviewers will review the code for obvious errors, as well as test out the patch set and opine on the technical merits of the patch. Project maintainers take into account the peer review when determining if there is consensus to merge a pull request (remember that discussions may have been spread out over github, mailing list and IRC discussions). The following language is used within pull-request comments: | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did you delete those lines?
Will there be no peer review?
How will decisions be made?
NACK ❌
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have no idea what the decision making process actually is. It could be radically different from Bitcoin Core (unless otherwise stated) and since answer I got for #13 was "We're not sure yet" + "we have a draft here on this site" I figured at least don't include anything that could be potentially misleading. A "TBD" is not misleading.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for clarifying the unclarity!
|
OK, so can someone be a bit clearer then on which parts are still true regarding the decision-making process and which aren't? I get that the process regarding protocol changes are up in the air, so that can go. What is known that's still the same? |
|
@taoeffect Ignore orangeman, he has been going to all of our PRs and spreading FUD and generally trolling. We need to write a bot that posts about him after each of his posts, maybe. Don't feed the troll. |
I'm hoping @toomim will come in and make some suggestions, or write a draft. You could too. Basically, we want to keep the code quality high, and should be encouraging people to check their work and not submit crap. But we also want to be doing things in a democratic manner, which https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/how-to-change-the-code?results=true describes. That's just a draft, but it's a good start, I think, and reflects my preferences and the preferences of a few other founding members. But it's still up for debate. |
|
I agree with @jtoomim. Another thing to add is that code should ideally come with:
|
|
OK, I don't want to waste your time guys, so I'm going to close this PR since I don't have the interest or time to write the Decision Making section (sorry) and I am afraid I would do a poor job of representing the consensus if I tried. Hopefully someone else can open another PR to take care of #13. |
|
Okay, thanks for trying @taoeffect. We'll figure it out soon. |
|
@taoeffect You don't have to represent the consensus. You can propose something on consider.it, and then people will tell you how much they support or oppose it. Then you can learn from that and improve the proposal. Finding consensus is an iterative process. |
|
@jtoomim Thanks for calling my attention to this request. @taoeffect I actually like your pull request and would like to see it merged. Can we accept this request? Removing lines we don't like is a good first step to writing the ones we do like. I can then add back the lines that jonathan wants in a separate pull. |
|
Per @toomim's request, re-opening. |
|
Alright, I'll merge this then we can add another PR later to add the new information |
Updated "Decision Making" section to reflect current uncertainty
|
@essofluffy on slack is working on a new version. |
No description provided.