One possible option could be to discuss on GitHub issues until something requires feedback or there is controversy. That would optimize both streams of conversation. The communication on the ML stays coarse grained (e.g. we are happy with API x or not) and the GitHub convo is fine grained (I think this interface should be split etc).
+0
I'd personally rather keep it on the mailing list. Eclipse' Mail Archives do work well. And GitHub already trashed all the history of their bug reporting system once. So we can only hope that it will fork fine. In any case we should keep all the discussions in one single place which is backed up and archived.
LieGrue, strub
+1 for GitHub too
Not too long ago, a lot of people were very vocal about keeping discussions on this mailing list and not moving them anywhere else. Not sure about anyone else, but I for one am not ready to repeat that deba{t,cl}e :-)
+1 but have you considered GitHub Discussions instead, see https://github.com/unitsofmeasurement/indriya/discussions which we created in the RI of JSR 385 for decision making? ;-) Werner +1 on putting this on CDI github wiki! I like this idea as I am also leaning towards having it primarily on GH.
While at it, we should probably clean up the Wiki; it is massively outdated :-D
I'll take a look at it.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ladislav Thon" <lthon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "cdi developer discussions" <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 9:50:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
>
> I recently noticed this:
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jaxrs-api/wiki/Committer-Conventions and it
> seemed quite reasonable to me. I don't mind if we have different rules, but
> I like how theirs are short, easy to understand and follow, and present on
> GitHub. We could put them on GitHub wiki as well I think?
>
> LT
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 9:43 AM Matej Novotny < manovotn@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
>
>
> Reviving this thread, I just want to sum it up and decide where to capture
> the result so that it's visible and not forgotten.
>
> Reading up on this thread, most people agreed on using *simple majority with
> lazy consensus*.
> This means any vote needs more than 50% +1 votes from committers and silence
> implies approval.
>
> Now, the question is - where do we put this? There are two places I can think
> of:
> * Somewhere in Eclipse website (probably Governance tab)
> - https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.cdi/governance
> * GH page of project, into README
> - https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/cdi
>
> @Antoine, @Scott do you have any idea how to edit the eclipse project page?
>
> Regards
> Matej
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Antoine Sabot-Durand" < antoine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > To: "cdi developer discussions" < cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx >
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 4:24:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
> >
> > +1 for simple majority
> >
> >
> >
> > Le jeu. 18 févr. 2021 à 00:23, Jason Greene < jason.greene@xxxxxxxxxx > a
> > écrit :
> >
> >
> >
> > I think for it to truly be a neutral vote, it has to be a deferral to the
> > non-neutral voters. So effectively your latter, but a simpler definition is
> > essentially the majority of YES/NO votes decides the outcome (non-vote is
> > another method of neutrality),
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2021, at 5:08 PM, Emily Jiang < emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > wrote:
> >
> > +1 Reza!
> > I think we are in agreement to go with a simple majority with no veto power
> > from any one of us. Basically we only count +1 and lazy consensus when
> > judging whether we have got a simple majority.
> >
> > One more question: if someone has voted 0 (neither approval nor
> > disapproval),
> > should we count towards approval or deduct one from the base when working
> > out the simple majority (e.g, we have 8 CDI committers, if 2 committers
> > voted 0, we reduce the overall cmmitter base to 6. In this way, 4 votes
> > will
> > be a simple majority)?
> >
> > Emily
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 2:33 PM Reza Rahman < reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think a simple majority with no veto right is the best way to make
> > progress
> > at this juncture. We really need to get Jakarta EE innovating once again,
> > even if decisions aren't perfect or make everyone happy at a given point in
> > time.
> > On 2/17/21 8:27 AM, Werner Keil wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don’t think that’s how those Projects at Eclipse (Jakarta EE) now work
> > anyway.
> >
> > In theory there could be non-binding votes by people on the Mailing list
> > but
> > only the 7 committers listed here
> > https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.cdi/who
> >
> > (plus potentially another one or two who may be voted on right now) have
> > binding votes.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is also similar in other places like the Spec Committee, where we
> > occasionally record one or the other subscriber to the mailing list but
> > those are not binding votes for a spec release or update vote.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: Matej Novotny
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2021 10:36
> > An: cdi developer discussions
> > Betreff: Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Giving anyone veto rights sounds very dangerous to me. Ideally, you want to
> > reach full consensus whenever possible but you cannot allow potential
> > blocking by any one person indefinitely.
> >
> >
> >
> > Personally, I am +1 for simple majority with lazy consensus (for that we
> > have
> > a way to handle commiters who don't partake in vote).
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Matej
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > > From: "Gurkan Erdogdu" < gerdogdu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> >
> > > To: "cdi developer discussions" < cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx >
> >
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 9:07:43 AM
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > And that is never a good practice in an open-source project. Just my
> >
> > > thoughts…
> >
> > > It is used in ASF, https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It is just an option :)
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Regards.
> >
> > > Gurkan
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On 17 Feb 2021, at 11:00, Ivar Grimstad <
> >
> > > ivar.grimstad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I think I would avoid that since it effectively gives a committer veto
> >
> > > rights. And that is never a good practice in an open-source project. Just
> > > my
> >
> > > thoughts...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Ivar
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 8:44 AM Gurkan Erdogdu < gerdogdu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Hi
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Option C: No -1 blocker vote
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It can be simple as no -1 blocker vote from any committer. If there are
> > > some
> >
> > > -1’s, we need to clear it before accepting….
> >
> > > Regards.
> >
> > > Gurkan
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On 17 Feb 2021, at 03:06, Scott Stark < starksm64@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > As of tomorrow there will be 8 committers, so 5 would be a simple
> > > majority
> >
> > > while 6 would be a super majority. In either option, lazy consensus
> > > should
> >
> > > also be used so that silence implies approval. You have to voice
> > > opposition
> >
> > > to be counted on the nay side of a vote.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Until it proven to be necessary or desired, I would prefer starting with
> > > a
> >
> > > simple majority decision process.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:56 PM Emily Jiang < emijiang6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > In today's CDI meeting, we discussed how to make decisions when there are
> >
> > > split views. As you know, after some lengthy discussion, we need to make
> >
> > > decisions for some technical issues.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I took a todo and brought this up today's Jakarta EE spec committee
> > > meeting
> >
> > > today for some guidance. In the meeting, I was told that each spec has
> > > the
> >
> > > freedom to choose the decision making process. Eclipse Foundation might
> > > come
> >
> > > up with a recommendation but the adoption is optional. With this in mind,
> > > we
> >
> > > can make our own decision making process. After we have agreed on the
> >
> > > decision making process, we need to document it clearly.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > A couple of suggestions:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Option A: simple majority of committers' votes.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > e.g. if we have 9 committers and solution A is put up for a vote,
> >
> > > solution A will be accepted if 5 or more committers vote +1.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Non-committers are encouraged to vote but they are counted as non-binding
> >
> > > votes.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Option B: super majority (2/3) of committers' votes.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > e.g. if we have 9 committers and solution A is put up for a vote,
> >
> > > solution A will be accepted if 6 or more committers vote +1.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Non-committers are encouraged to vote but they are counted as non-binding
> >
> > > votes.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Feel free to add more options.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --
> >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > > Emily
> >
> > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > cdi-dev mailing list
> >
> > > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> >
> > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > cdi-dev mailing list
> >
> > > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> >
> > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > cdi-dev mailing list
> >
> > > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> >
> > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --
> >
> > > Ivar Grimstad
> >
> > > Jakarta EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse Foundation
> >
> > > Eclipse Foundation - Community. Code. Collaboration.
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > cdi-dev mailing list
> >
> > > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> >
> > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > cdi-dev mailing list
> >
> > > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> >
> > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> >
> > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list,
> > visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > Emily
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdi-dev mailing list
> > cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
--
Thanks
Emily
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
--
_______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
_______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
|
