Removed BDFL #18
Removed BDFL #18
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mostly LGTM, the main concern is "Jenkins Governance Board" and "Jenkins Governance Meeting". The first term is used, but from what I see @bitwiseman rather means the latter term. Please correct me if I am wrong.
| Any core contributor that believes they have | ||
| suitable knowledge and standing in the community to make the final decision on that JEP | ||
| may offer to serve as the "Reviewer" for that JEP. | ||
| If their self-nomination is accepted by the other core contributors, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how it happens? Voting at the governance meeting? Or just a feedback in the JEP PR discussion/ML?
|
|
||
| If the Reviewer for a JEP is a contributor other than the BDFL, | ||
| this will be recorded in the <<header-reviewer, "Reviewer" header>> in the JEP. | ||
| Unlike, Sponsors, there is only one Reviewer for each JEP. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not see strong need to have only one reviewer. I would just say "There may be multiple reviewers assigned. In order to get the JEP accepted, there should be at least one positive vote and no negative ones. So any reviewer has veto power, and they can abstain as well"
| @@ -316,15 +298,15 @@ the idea is applicable to the entire community and not just the sponsor. Just | |||
| because an idea sounds good to the sponsor does not mean it will work for most | |||
| people in most areas where Jenkins is used. | |||
|
|
|||
| A <<JEP Reviewer>> should be selected before the JEP is submitted, | |||
| but may also be added or changed any time before a document is reviewed. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see no specific need in this requirement, but OK.
I would just say that "JEP Reviewers should be selected via a discussion in the mailing list or in the Governance meeting, discussion in the pull request is NOT enough"
| @@ -546,6 +523,21 @@ If one or more contributors are not responding | |||
| and the sponsor chooses to move forard without their feedback, | |||
| they should document that choice in the "<<Reasoning>>" section of the JEP. | |||
|
|
|||
| ==== Resolving Disputes | |||
| the JEP process is run by | ||
| link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making[consensus]. | ||
| It is the responsibility of the every contributor to respect other contributors, | ||
| listen to their perspectives, and attempt to find solution that work for everyone. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"a solution that works" or "solutions that work"
| listen to their perspectives, and attempt to find solution that work for everyone. | ||
| If consensus cannot be achieved or if there is strong disagreement with the decision of a reviewer, | ||
| a contributor may request that the Jenkins Governance Board intervene. | ||
| The board will take up the matter at their next regular meeting and render a decision at the meeting following. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to clarify, do you mean "Jenkins Governance Board" or "Jenkins Governance Meeting"? These are different entities. Regular && public meetings apply only to the latter one.
| The board will take up the matter at their next regular meeting and render a decision at the meeting following. | ||
|
|
||
| This should be a last resort and should happen extremely rarely. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Governance meeting may make a decision to return JEP to draft and to assign another reviewer".
I am not sure whether Governance Meeting should be a place for "accepting"/"rejecting" JEPs though formally it should be eligible to do that as an ultimate power entity in Jenkins org.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I considered adding some statement that said JEPs could be rejected or returned to draft via this path, but not accepted. Only reviewers can accept, but as I said below, please go write it up as you believe it should be.
| People expressed concern over the limits of the BDFL-based model | ||
| They felt having 1-person bottlenecks or too much power in the JEP process could be problematic. | ||
| We chose to remove the BDFL role, adding a "Reviewer" role to handle JEP review and resolution, | ||
| and directing any disputes to the Jenkins Governance Board. |
|
@oleg-nenashev Great, thanks! Instead of asking what I meant or if something should be changed, it would be super helpful if you could submit the changes you'd believe need to happen to this PR as a PR of your own that targets this PR. see #13. For example, Board vs Meeting. I don't know. What do you think? Which ever answer it is, the PR would be more effective. You can either change it or add clarification as to why it is this one. |
I would rather prefer "Governance Meeting", because it's more public. Also there is a reelection issue in the board, which I would prefer to avoid in the JEP process. OTOH Board resolves conflicts between contributors in Code-of-Conduct and hence resolving JEP conflicts there would be natural. I will create a pull request |
@oleg-nenashev @rtyler
After some review and discussion, I've removed the BDFL from the JEP.