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

Conversation

@crosbymichael
Copy link
Member

commented Feb 27, 2019

Closes #15

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

@mlaventure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 27, 2019

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

@crosbymichael

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 27, 2019

@mlaventure any proposed wording for a paragraph like this?

@mlaventure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

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 crosbymichael force-pushed the crosbymichael:tsc branch from ce4adce to 05d866d Feb 28, 2019
@crosbymichael

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 28, 2019

Updated with @estesp suggestion for resolutions

@estesp
estesp approved these changes Feb 28, 2019
Copy link
Collaborator

left a comment

LGTM

Copy link
Member

left a comment

LGTM

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

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

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 #15

Signed-off-by: Michael Crosby <crosbymichael@gmail.com>
@crosbymichael crosbymichael force-pushed the crosbymichael:tsc branch from 05d866d to 6cb1db2 Mar 6, 2019
@crosbymichael

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 6, 2019

Updated per @stevvooe 's comment

@AkihiroSuda

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 6, 2019

This PR itself should require quorum?

@crosbymichael

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 6, 2019

I think we have quorum

@estesp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Mar 6, 2019

Still LGTM

@mlaventure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Mar 6, 2019

Still LGTM too

Copy link
Member

left a comment

/LGTM

@stevvooe

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

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

left a comment

LGTM

Copy link

left a comment

LGTM

@dmcgowan dmcgowan merged commit 831961d into containerd:master Mar 6, 2019
1 check passed
1 check passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.