[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
|
All,
as GH Wiki doesn't support the concept of PRs, I have pushed the changes straight upstream.
Apart from including the decision making process, I have also deleted other pages that contained very outdated (CDI 1.1) information, EG group remarks etc. that are no longer relevant.
Whole wiki is now a single page information with links, decision making process and contribution note.
If interested, check the wiki page here - https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/cdi/wiki
We can OFC adapt it further if needed.
Regards
Matej
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matej Novotny" <manovotn@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "cdi developer discussions" <cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 10:14:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Decision making process in CDI spec
>
> 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 While at it, we should probably clean up the Wiki; it is massively outdated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
>
