Address grantr feedback on #149 #151
Conversation
knative-prow-robot
added
the
size/M
evankanderson
force-pushed
the
one-thirty
branch
from
8cd2d9e
to
72d5fe2
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @evankanderson! This resolves all my previous comments with the exception of #149 (comment). I created #152 to track that.
/lgtm
|
/assign @pmorie I think this is basically clarifications, but it needs steering to approve since it's in the top-level. Since you've been driving these discussions, assigning to you. |
|
@pmorie just a ping if there's any changes still required here or if we're good to go. |
|
looking at this now, my sincere apologies for latency |
REPOSITORY-GUIDELINES.md
Outdated
| entire duration. Promotion from the sandbox into core will be handled on a | ||
| case-by-case basis by joint decision of the Steering Committee and the Technical | ||
| Oversight Committee. | ||
| the core; in most cases, projects in the sandbox will remain there for the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor nit, I think i would prefer 'the knative github org' to 'the core', because 'the core' makes people feel all kinds of things
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done. Removed a few other places, but it starts at the top of the document, so there are cases in some parts of the doc still where it makes sense and is less likely to have feels.
REPOSITORY-GUIDELINES.md
Outdated
| networking or eventing integrations. In the event that a working group wants a | ||
| project in sandbox to be considered for transfer to the `knative` org, the | ||
| request will be considered on a case-by-case basis by joint decision of the | ||
| Steering Committee and the Technical Oversight Committee. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think now that KTC would also have a say, yes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought about this -- I think the KTC would have a say as to whether it was part of any conformance spec, but not necessarily the location of the code.
|
TM committee spoke about this issue at our TM meeting on March 4th - we decided that the TM committee only really care about the "specs" repo and that structure of repos/ref implementation is out of scope for TM committee. cc @knative/trademark-committee |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: pmorie The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
knative-prow-robot
added
the
approved
REPOSITORY-GUIDELINES.md
Outdated
| networking or eventing integrations. In the event that a working group wants a | ||
| project in sandbox to be considered for transfer to the `knative` org, the | ||
| request will be considered on a case-by-case basis by joint decision of the | ||
| Steering Committee and the Technical Oversight Committee. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought about this -- I think the KTC would have a say as to whether it was part of any conformance spec, but not necessarily the location of the code.
REPOSITORY-GUIDELINES.md
Outdated
| entire duration. Promotion from the sandbox into core will be handled on a | ||
| case-by-case basis by joint decision of the Steering Committee and the Technical | ||
| Oversight Committee. | ||
| the core; in most cases, projects in the sandbox will remain there for the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done. Removed a few other places, but it starts at the top of the document, so there are cases in some parts of the doc still where it makes sense and is less likely to have feels.
See #149