Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

Sorry for the delay in responding; I have had much time today. The code of conduct committee's intention in changing the status on some of the disputed tickets was to note ways in which participants had not followed our previous standards for setting review status. At this point, given the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

... if there is any difference in process between the PRs currently set to "positive review" and those currently set to "needs review"? In my opinion, all disputed PRs waiting for voting should be reset to "needs review" status. Kwankyu -- You received this message because you are

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

David, Would you clarify if there is any difference in process between the PRs currently set to "positive review" and those currently set to "needs review"? On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 10:28:12 PM UTC-7 David Roe wrote: > The vote has passed. There are currently 36 open disputed PRs >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

The vote has passed. There are currently 36 open disputed PRs . Given the extensive comments on some of these PRs, I would agree that we should follow some version of Karl-Dieter's suggestion. In particular, while the author of the PR remains

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

It would be helpful for anyone explicitly voting +/-1 to either link to a previous comment or make a new actual comment (beyond the vote) to clarify. This is particularly if there have been new commits since the initial dispute, because for an outside reviewer it can be hard to untangle all

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

Having just encountered this "in action", I have a suggestion: "There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on opinions expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed via previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval). The PR author is

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

Essentially +1 but might want to consider cases when its 2 vs 1 as requiring at least one other person involved. (Sorry for being late to realize this.) Best, Travis On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 5:23:39 PM UTC+9 David Roe wrote: > With no further discussion on this thread >

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 12:23:39 AM UTC-8 David Roe wrote: > With no further discussion on this thread > , I'm calling a > vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR. > > *Proposal* > It is now allowed to vote on

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 ... although I expect that further clarifications will be needed once we have tried to apply this process. On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 12:23:39 AM UTC-8 David Roe wrote: > With no further discussion on this thread > , I'm calling a >

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

+1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit