On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 04:51:11PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Sruthi Chandran dijo [Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 09:56:30PM +0200]: > > > Do you have any improvements to this process that could help making > > > mini-GRs more manageable? > > > > I like the name mini-GRs :) > > Ok, often naming a problem is an important step towards developing a > solution for it. Congratulations on solving that first step! 😉
A bigger problem is that this sounds to me like a futile effort of trying to find technical solutions to social issues. > > I just have some ideas, nothing concrete. Mini-GRs can be within a team > > or if it concerns the whole project, among all the DDs. Instead of long > > weeks of GR discussions, we can focus on reaching decision within a week > > or two of discussion. We can also reduce the requirement for sponsorship > > for the proposals. If our current voting system is heavy, we can even > > think of something lighter. > > So, in the interest of people (maybe including Sruthi) that are not > familiar with the process, that's the way the Technical Committee performs > their votes: >... The TC is a project-wide court for technical issues with 8 judges, and an issue they are deciding on might ideally not even affect them personally. The formal voting process does make sense there. But a push to just outvote disagreements within a team could easily create larger conflicts, asking a third party like the TC to mediate would be a better solution in many cases. > – Gunnar. cu Adrian
