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.

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

Move TSC from containerd #16

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 6, 2019
Merged

Move TSC from containerd #16

merged 1 commit into from Mar 6, 2019

Conversation

@crosbymichael
Copy link
Member

@crosbymichael crosbymichael commented Feb 27, 2019

Closes #15

Signed-off-by: Michael Crosby crosbymichael@gmail.com

@mlaventure
Copy link
Contributor

@mlaventure mlaventure commented Feb 27, 2019

Should we still have a paragraph about how technical conflicts are to be handled?

@crosbymichael
Copy link
Member Author

@crosbymichael crosbymichael commented Feb 27, 2019

@mlaventure any proposed wording for a paragraph like this?

@mlaventure
Copy link
Contributor

@mlaventure mlaventure commented Feb 27, 2019

I think we should probably write a TSC document (could probably just be a modified of Moby's. Although I would lower the members to 5 personally). In between I would be fine with just saying any unresolved dispute shall be adjudicated by a small group of predefined maintainers until a TSC is define and an election made.

For the maintainers to start I would personally go with (based on latest activities/investment and companies):

Or we could use the same process as when promoting new maintainers while waiting for us to add a TSC.

@crosbymichael
Copy link
Member Author

@crosbymichael crosbymichael commented Feb 27, 2019

I think from the last discussion, we would just defer to maintainers overall to keep from a voting process for a TSC. I think we have a diverse enough group to get wide points of view on things. Maybe a formal process to "escalate" to a vote on certain issues to be voted on as a whole by maintainers would work.

@mlaventure
Copy link
Contributor

@mlaventure mlaventure commented Feb 27, 2019

In that case, just opening a PR with a proper title could do and the vote can follow the same restrictions as for adding maintainers. That would work for me.

@estesp
Copy link
Member

@estesp estesp commented Feb 27, 2019

Maybe under conflict resolution we can just have something like:

"If you have a technical dispute that you feel has reached an impasse with a subset of the community, any contributor may open an issue, specifically calling for a resolution vote of the current maintainers to resolve the dispute. The same voting quorums required for adding and removing maintainers will apply to conflict resolution."

@crosbymichael
Copy link
Member Author

@crosbymichael crosbymichael commented Feb 28, 2019

Updated with @estesp suggestion for resolutions

estesp
estesp approved these changes Feb 28, 2019
Copy link
Member

@estesp estesp left a comment

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@lowenna lowenna left a comment

LGTM

dqminh
dqminh approved these changes Mar 1, 2019
Copy link
Member

@stevvooe stevvooe left a comment

I think we need to be more specific about the quorum requirements. Tying it to maintainer adding vote isn’t enough. I would say 2/3 for big things, erring in the side of not having a change.

@mikebrow
Copy link
Member

@mikebrow mikebrow commented Mar 4, 2019

I think we need to be more specific about the quorum requirements. Tying it to maintainer adding vote isn’t enough. I would say 2/3 for big things, erring in the side of not having a change.

I think the point was we have a quorum requirement for adding and removing, looking above that percent is 66% (2/3) and we can use that here as well. But yeah nbd to repeat that value here vs cite to it. I'm good with the text as is, or edited to repeat the majority quorum requirement separately here.

Closes containerd#15

Signed-off-by: Michael Crosby <crosbymichael@gmail.com>
@crosbymichael
Copy link
Member Author

@crosbymichael crosbymichael commented Mar 6, 2019

Updated per @stevvooe 's comment

@AkihiroSuda
Copy link
Member

@AkihiroSuda AkihiroSuda commented Mar 6, 2019

This PR itself should require quorum?

@crosbymichael
Copy link
Member Author

@crosbymichael crosbymichael commented Mar 6, 2019

I think we have quorum

@estesp
Copy link
Member

@estesp estesp commented Mar 6, 2019

I would like to see @stevvooe give a nod on the updated wording; given the approval on the discussion and the number of LGTMs here, I assume we are good but @containerd/containerd-maintainers please take a look at the update.

@lowenna
Copy link
Contributor

@lowenna lowenna commented Mar 6, 2019

Still LGTM

@mlaventure
Copy link
Contributor

@mlaventure mlaventure commented Mar 6, 2019

Still LGTM too

Copy link
Member

@mikebrow mikebrow left a comment

/LGTM

@stevvooe
Copy link
Member

@stevvooe stevvooe commented Mar 6, 2019

LGTM

The wording still links it to maintainer additions. As the project scales, my guess is that we’ll change that. Resolution votes will always be 2/3 or more while maintainer addition criteria may change.

@dmcgowan dmcgowan dismissed stevvooe’s stale review Mar 6, 2019

Resolved with LGTM

Copy link
Member

@dmcgowan dmcgowan left a comment

LGTM

Copy link

@jterry75 jterry75 left a comment

LGTM

@dmcgowan dmcgowan merged commit 831961d into containerd:master Mar 6, 2019
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

10 participants