@David - sorry! you are right!
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 10:46 David Sidrane <david.sidr...@nscdg.com> wrote: > +1 100% agreement > > WOW - The Evolve Way of Working (WoW) process (Disciplined Agile (DA)) > > Please, Please do not assume TLA[1] are known. > > We do not all spec the same language here. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alin Jerpelea [mailto:jerpe...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 12:41 AM > To: dev@nuttx.apache.org > Subject: Re: Simple Workflow Proposal > > If we want things to move we need an initial workflow or we risk to be > stuck for weeks debating for a way forward. > This simple workflow should move us forward so that we can improve it over > several iterations. > There are many new things for all of us and no WOW is tested and known to > be our WOW. We must try new things to be able to move forward in the new > structure. > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 18:08 Brennan Ashton <bash...@brennanashton.com> > wrote: > > > I did not call for a vote because I did not think I could as I'm just a > > community member, I would like my proposal formally voted it on as is. > > > > > > As for the two concerns that I saw raised. > > > > 1) The timeline. Two weeks over the holiday to come to a formal agreement > > is going to be tough and I also don't think just because we have a path > > forward people will stop caring about proposing a better solution. From > > what I'm seeing the longer term proposal will likely get into the weeds > of > > tooling around CI email patches etc... These take weeks to settle on. I > > trust the intentions of the people in the project and do not see a need > to > > bind them to a timeline to build this out. > > > > 2) Why cut corners. Personally I don't see this as cutting corners I > > think > > this will in practice get us 90% of the way there and get us back into a > > cadence of improving the software. I trust the project members will use > > judgement within the structure and will actively move the project along > to > > better structure. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Brennan > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 7:08 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Again, is this a formal vote? it is not clear to me. Did someone in > > > the PPMC call a vote? There is not [VOTE] in the message title? > > > > > > Just point of order which I do not know the answer too. Brennan is > not > > > yet listed as a PPMC member or a as a committer (but he should be and, > > > hopefully, will be). Can non-PPMC members calls votes that are binding > > > on the PPMC? Just to be clear, I think that someone in the PPMC should > > > call the vote with [VOTE] in the title so that is is clear if we are > > > castubg a binding vote or not for something are not? Or are we just > > > agreeing in principle or not? > > > > > > Are these binding votes? We need to clarify what is going on. > > > > > > I think we should stop the habit of using +1 just to indicate we agree > > > with something and we need to enforce the use of [VOTE] in the title so > > > that we know this is a binding vote. > > > > > > On 12/22/2019 7:57 AM, Xiang Xiao wrote: > > > > +1. > > > > It's impotant to let people start the contribution. > > > > The committer could/should do more work to ensure the correction in > > > > review process before the automation tool is ready. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Xiang > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 8:57 PM David Sidrane <davi...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > >> This works! > > > >> > > > >> On 2019/12/22 02:05:56, Brennan Ashton <bash...@brennanashton.com> > > > wrote: > > > >>> I really want to let people to contribute (myself included) ASAP so > > > >>> I > > > was > > > >>> to propose this as an option to get going and can be amended later. > > > >>> I > > > know > > > >>> it does not resolve all the issues, but offers what I think is a > > > reasonable > > > >>> avenue to get started. > > > >>> > > > >>> Submit a PR on GitHub against master if it is approved by one > > commiter > > > >>> (that did not propose it) > > > >> This is key! We need the eyes (and possibly the hands) of the > > > >> subject > > > matter experts, reviewing, commenting and possible fixing submissions. > > > >> > > > >>> it can be merged. The approval is done via the > > > >>> GitHub approval system. > > > >> +1 > > > >>> A commiter may create a PR on behalf of a patch submitted to the > > > mailing > > > >>> list. > > > >> +1 > > > >>> Commiters can ask for others to review or approve. But at the end > > > >>> of > > > the > > > >>> day they are the ones who approve and merge. > > > >> +1 > > > >>> We can and should amend this later, it is likely not enough long > > term. > > > >>> > > > >>> Could people vote if they think this is fine to start. If you don't > > > agree > > > >>> just note that and we can review where we are at. > > > >>> > > > >>> --Brennan > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >
