I am in favor of option #1. I think a model of RTC with a time limit would be nice, where it if there is not activity in 72hrs that its approved by lazy consensus.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:54 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Devs, > > I noticed that https://fluo.apache.org/how-to-contribute/ links to > https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit to > describe R-T-C. That link references > https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval > which describes a voting procedure that requires 3 +1s and no vetoes. > Voting periods are at least 72 hours at ASF, to allow sufficient time > for feedback. So, we are currently not following the foundation's > definition of review-then-commit. > > Rather, what we are doing is something else entirely. Our procedure is > to ensure that at least one committer (other than the author) has > looked over a change and has had the opportunity to examine it and has > no objections. There is no vote, and certainly not a requirement for 3 > +1s. Actually, it's not even clear to me that we require the reviewer > to be a committer, although I think I've been assuming it would be. > > I think this model is fine, but since it doesn't align to the ASF > definition, there's a few things we can or should do to bring some > clarity to our R-T-C model: > > 1. We can provide our own definition of review-then-commit, > 2. We can start actually following the definition from the Foundation, or > 3. We can switch to a commit-then-review model formally, while > informally still encouraging reviews first (obviously, non-committers > have to have stuff reviewed still) > > I'm in favor of option #1... but option #3 is appealing to me, because > it's how we operate in Accumulo right now, and I'm starting to get > concerned that we don't have a sufficient number of reviewers active > right now. We're still pretty small in number, and it might be hard to > get reviews at times when people's activity levels fluctuate downward, > which can stall work. (Growing our size is a problem to be addressed, > but that's off-topic for this thread.) > > Thoughts? > > Christopher
