All, as there were no major objections to my summary of the proposed contribution guidelines I'd like to start a vote on this topic.
As usual, the vote will stay open for at least 72 hours (probably more, as I'll be gone for a long weekend starting Thursday). ---- The proposed principles are: Fundamentally we will follow a Review-then-commit workflow with two notable exceptions: - Trivial changes (jira issue classified as trivial or bull request marked by "TRIVIAL:..." ) - these still need to be posted for review but can be merged after 72 hours by lazy consensus - To fix a broken build - to be reviewed later, if possible Review requirements are separated, for code, tooling, website etc. the following applies: If the pull request was opened by a committer, the reviewer can be a non-committer (chosen by the committer). For pull requests opened by non-committers the reviewer must be a committer. For pull requests that change the content of training material the usual rules don't apply, as we probably won't have experts for all fields in the team from the get-go. For this case we will require two reviews, one by a SME for content, one by a committer for form. If a committer considers him or herself to be an SME as well one review is sufficient. For every commit there has to be either a jira or a pull request (both is fine too and actually recommended). ---- These are just the guidelines, not the fully worked up contribution guide, I'll draft that based on these after the vote is finished,but they will not deviate from what we decide here, just add more detail, so there will be no additional vote. I am +1 Best regards, Sönke
