I am only addressing a couple of Jan's points below.
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024, Jan Beulich wrote: > > A CPG will be your second point of call, where you can escalate matters > > quickly for a democratic solution. > > Between informal voting and this "second point of call", where does > formal voting go? Formal voting is still available as "third point of call" after informal voting and CPG. > > *How are members selected?* > > The CPG will be composed of 5 randomly selected members in total. > > An odd number has been purposely selected to avoid an impasse during > > decisions. > > > > The criteria: > > Individual members must be active contributors and are willing to help the > > community succeed. As such they must be a part of the following groups: > > > > - Committers > > - Active Maintainers: maintainers with >= 20 reviews in the last 2 > > releases > > - Active Contributors: contributors with >= 10 commits in the last 2 > > releases > > I'm afraid I can't leave this uncommented, as matching a common pattern > I'm generally unhappy with. Whatever the numbers you select in such > criteria, they'll open up an easy road for faking. At the same time it > of course is difficult to come up with any non-numeric or not-only- > numeric criteria. For example, I'd be heavily inclined to ask that > "non-trivial" be added to both of the numbers. Yet then there arises a > judgement issue: What's non-trivial can be entirely different > depending on who you ask. I share your observations and thoughts on the matter. I understand and share your thinking about adding "non-trivial" but then it is becomes a judgment call, as you wrote. I think it would be best if the criteria doesn't require human judgment. > What definitely needs clarifying is what "review" is: Are R-b tags > counted, or is it the number of replies sent commenting on patches? Yes, I think this needs to be clarified. I would say Reviewed-by tags.
