I think there needs to be a clear indication that a voting period is active
(and when it closes). Perhaps we can use a PR label "s: voting" or "s:
needs votes"?
If we do not want to invent a new label, we may add "s: needs review", "s:
needs work", "s:needs info" altogether to get
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 1:24:42 AM UTC-8 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
(2) How do we count approvers and disapprovers for a disputed PR: A
reviewer becomes an approver (who is in favor of the PR) when he/she sets
"Approve" in the github review system. A reviewer becomes a disapprover
(who
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:02 PM David Roe wrote:
>
> Let's try to focus on the policy proposal, rather than specific disagreements
> on individual PRs.
The whole thing about specific disagreements on individual PRs comes
exactly from the wrong overall direction of the project.
Which replaced,
Let's try to focus on the policy proposal, rather than specific
disagreements on individual PRs.
Dima, I'm sorry that you're feeling frustrated with the whole process. It
may be helpful to have additional directions about the overall strategy for
Sage's build system, but that's better put off to
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 9:25 PM Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, Matthias and Dima spent lots of mental energy to produce a prime
> example showing why we need the policy:
>
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726
>
> Please come down from sun-shining deck to the murky bottom of our ship
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:25:17 PM UTC-8 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
Meanwhile, Matthias and Dima spent lots of mental energy to produce a prime
example showing why we need the policy:
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726
I endorse this example as one that is safe to study, without the
Meanwhile, Matthias and Dima spent lots of mental energy to produce a prime
example showing why we need the policy:
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726
Please come down from sun-shining deck to the murky bottom of our ship to
see the danger that might drown all of us...
--
You
A tangential follow-up to Matthias: I think that our code of conduct should
be part of the distributed documentation. Should it be in the Developer's
Guide? In some other existing documentation? As a standalone document?
Yes. I agree that it is very relevant. But to keep a single source of
I agree that we need a policy, and I am happy with David's proposal.
A tangential follow-up to Matthias: I think that our code of conduct should
be part of the distributed documentation. Should it be in the Developer's
Guide? In some other existing documentation? As a standalone document?
--
