On 24/05/2019 10:28, SHANE LONTIS wrote: > It doesn’t stop us both reviewing a PR. That doesn’t mean we both need to > approve.
Right...but in Matthias's version if you raise a PR, and then Pauli approves it, then you only then need to get a second committer approval. Otherwise you would need to get an OMC approval. That sounds ok to me. Matt > > >> On 24 May 2019, at 7:21 pm, Matthias St. Pierre <matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com >> <mailto:matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> > <p>In considering approvals, the combined approvals must come >> > from individuals who work for separate organisations. >> > This condition does not apply where the organisation is the >> > OSF or OSS. >> >> >> IMHO an important clarification needs to be made: The rule should not be >> about >> _prohibiting_ double approvals. It should only be about _counting_ them. >> I would not deprive people of the right to state their opinions. >> >> Also, if Shane has already approved, then Pauli should still have the right >> to approve, since his approval counts as OMC approval and Shane's not. >> >> How about using a formulation like the following? >> >> <p>In considering approvals, approvals from individuals being >> employed by the same third party company or organization should >> be counted as a single approval. If one of the individuals is >> an OMC member, the combined approval counts as an OMC approval. >> This condition does not apply where the organisation is the >> OSF or OSS. >> >> >> An editorial comment: I think that the amendmend should be made inside the >> unordered list, not following it. >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_web_blob_master_policies_committers.html-23L72-2DL78&d=DwIDaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=b1aL1L-m41VGkedIk-9Q7taAEKIshTBwq95Iah07uCk&m=DYHGYucybgbeMHQn9pS8SBhh_dvJkYrDgKu9gU2l9H4&s=jT3VTidhpkkMAwUuiu_JgqW9mBpD4PP-3Qc8D3KZDdU&e= >> >> Apart from that: Tim, could you (or someone else of the OMC) please raise a >> PR >> for your proposal? That would make it easier to discuss the details. >> >> Matthias >> >> >
