[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[Nathan Dunfield]

+1

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/36943a81-ebb7-4dc8-920a-3e9ada379099n%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

[Nathan Dunfield]

+1

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/08598c62-0ab2-40da-859b-7437a1e4e989n%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

[Volker Braun]

Thanks for working on this, John!

I like that they are aspirational goals, being nice to each other shouldn't 
be that hard.

There are always going to be questions "what exactly is now allowed", but 
its impossible to enumerate everything. Is it OK to push to somebody else's 
branch, or change the issue description? Maybe. Surely fixing a typo is OK. 
But hijacking somebody else's issue to do something that wasn't intended by 
the author is not OK. Unless you talked about it first, and agreed on it. 
Then its OK again. Maybe you though the change was welcome, but it turns 
out it wasn't. Just be nice and reset the branch to the previous state, no 
harm done.





On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 10:24:29 PM UTC+1 John H Palmieri wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> I am working on some changes to Sage's Code of Conduct, and I am asking 
> for comments. Once the draft has stabilized, then we will hold a vote on 
> sage-devel to approve (or not) the changes. Please visit 
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37501 to see the proposal.
>
> The current Code of Conduct was approved by a vote in sage-devel almost 10 
> years ago. My intention is not to alter the core principles in the Code of 
> Conduct, but instead to add more details: for example, how should you 
> report a possible violation, what are possible consequences if the Sage 
> Code of Conduct Committee (what has until now been called the Sage Abuse 
> Committee) finds that a violation occurred, how to amend the document, etc. 
> The changes are based in large part on similar documents from SciPy and 
> NumFOCUS: we are not reinventing the wheel.
>
> As such, I hope that the proposed changes are (a) not controversial, and 
> (b) a clear improvement. I could certainly be wrong about either of these, 
> but I will make this suggestion: if you agree with me about (a) and (b) and 
> you also want to propose changes that are potentially more controversial, 
> then I would ask that you make that proposal separately so that the Sage 
> community can vote on it separately, and the changes can be merged 
> independently of each other.
>
> Please take a look and leave comments on the PR.
>
> -- 
> John
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c4d11498-88c5-4306-8216-e7776c3eff30n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

[Dima Pasechnik]

I think this doesn't work. E.g. the proposal talks about setting PRs to "needs 
work", but banned by the PR's author team members can't do this.

That's why, as I said already, bans break the normal workflow, be it reviewing 
or voting.

On 4 March 2024 22:08:29 GMT, kcrisman  wrote:
>
>
>
>Dima, I think that if anyone is incapable of posting to a particular PR, 
>they should send email to someone who can post and ask them to record the 
>person's vote, resulting in a comment like "I am posting to record 1 
>negative vote from X, 2 positive votes from Y and Z".
>
>
>Yes, that would also go for those who do not choose to use GH.   
>
>-- 
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>"sage-devel" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>To view this discussion on the web visit 
>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0ae620d2-8a84-4290-bf03-66f2d0d03264n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/17148F09-3727-4760-88BC-924D13EA741B%40gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

[kcrisman]

Dima, I think that if anyone is incapable of posting to a particular PR, 
they should send email to someone who can post and ask them to record the 
person's vote, resulting in a comment like "I am posting to record 1 
negative vote from X, 2 positive votes from Y and Z".


Yes, that would also go for those who do not choose to use GH.   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/0ae620d2-8a84-4290-bf03-66f2d0d03264n%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[John H Palmieri]

+1

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/db4939fa-dda7-4c53-b4f0-5bb229d3826bn%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

[John H Palmieri]

+1

On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 12:23:39 AM UTC-8 David Roe wrote:

> With no further discussion on this thread 
> , I'm calling a 
> vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR.
>
> *Proposal*
> It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs directly on Github rather than 
> bringing them to sage-devel.  Working things out amicably is preferable, 
> and anyone is welcome to ask on sage-devel for more eyes on a PR.  If you 
> notice a serious issue with a PR, it is acceptable to change it to Needs 
> Work (and make a comment!) as an initial step, but if the author or 
> reviewer do not agree then process below should be followed instead. This 
> process is intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving 
> disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process described 
> below.
> a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone 
> may mark a PR as disputed.
> b. There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on 
> opinions expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed 
> via previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval).  The 
> PR author is presumed to vote in favor; if they give up or no longer favor 
> the PR they have the right to close the PR overall without any further 
> voting.
> c. If the total number of positive votes is at least twice the number of 
> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *positive review*; 
> if the total number of positive votes is less than twice the number of 
> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *needs review*.  
> When either of these actions is taken, the person changing the status must 
> list the people they are counting as positive and negative votes in a 
> comment using @ mentions.
> d. The final decision on merging a disputed PR remains with the release 
> manager, and we encourage the release manager to give enough time for 
> everyone to express an opinion.
>
> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
> David
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/c5314119-140d-41ee-b9e9-37e2a3303487n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

[John H Palmieri]

Dima, I think that if anyone is incapable of posting to a particular PR, 
they should send email to someone who can post and ask them to record the 
person's vote, resulting in a comment like "I am posting to record 1 
negative vote from X, 2 positive votes from Y and Z".


On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 5:27:21 AM UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote:

> David, 
> how about team members who are blocked on GitHub.
> For GitHub voting to work, this has to be sorted out first.
>
> Dima
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:23 AM David Roe  wrote:
>
>> With no further discussion on this thread 
>> , I'm calling a 
>> vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR.
>>
>> *Proposal*
>> It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs directly on Github rather than 
>> bringing them to sage-devel.  Working things out amicably is preferable, 
>> and anyone is welcome to ask on sage-devel for more eyes on a PR.  If you 
>> notice a serious issue with a PR, it is acceptable to change it to Needs 
>> Work (and make a comment!) as an initial step, but if the author or 
>> reviewer do not agree then process below should be followed instead. This 
>> process is intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving 
>> disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process described 
>> below.
>> a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone 
>> may mark a PR as disputed.
>> b. There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on 
>> opinions expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed 
>> via previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval).  The 
>> PR author is presumed to vote in favor; if they give up or no longer favor 
>> the PR they have the right to close the PR overall without any further 
>> voting.
>> c. If the total number of positive votes is at least twice the number of 
>> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *positive review*; 
>> if the total number of positive votes is less than twice the number of 
>> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *needs review*.  
>> When either of these actions is taken, the person changing the status must 
>> list the people they are counting as positive and negative votes in a 
>> comment using @ mentions.
>> d. The final decision on merging a disputed PR remains with the release 
>> manager, and we encourage the release manager to give enough time for 
>> everyone to express an opinion.
>>
>> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
>> David
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n4az3_s16E%3DANOv_o%2B0SvavHwnpqKWYuOznGWTJoXqEg%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/f5e76b29-0011-428e-bf97-43fc16c2f6e9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Looking for volunteers

[David Roe]

We've received several nominations, but if you have been on the fence about
suggesting someone I encourage you to write to us.  The nomination period
will close tomorrow night.
David

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:52 AM David Roe  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:51 AM Dima Pasechnik  wrote:
>
>>
>>> We propose the following voting system.
>>> 1. A nomination period of 1 week, where any Sage developer can nominate
>>> someone to serve on the committee by emailing
>>> sage-ab...@googlegroups.com.  You are allowed to nominate yourself (and
>>> we encourage it); if you nominate someone else we will email them and ask
>>> if they are willing to serve.  To be eligible you should have
>>> a. Contributed code to Sage at some point in the past
>>> b. Not been subject to a complaint to the committee at any point.
>>>
>>
>> b. sounds way too broad to me. Should it say in addition something like
>> "The complaint in question only qualifies if it was ruled valid by the
>> committee." Note that these complaints were misused in the past.
>>
>
> Sure, that seems reasonable.
> David
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_%3D-T3iKgi5f55JDpJh43ZFA2fMeJs_F%3DTC8KYpO4Rz-VA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[Vincent Delecroix]

+1

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 20:21, G. M.-S.  wrote:
>
>
> +1
>
> Guillermo
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 09:43, David Roe  wrote:
>>
>> The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in PR 
>> #37428, in this thread and then in this thread.  It is orthogonal to the 
>> ongoing vote in this thread.  With no further discussion, I'm calling a vote.
>>
>> Background
>>
>> Starting in Sage 10.2, PRs with the Blocker label have been merged into all 
>> other PRs before running CI; see the changelog and this post for more 
>> details.  This has led to disagreements about whether this label should be 
>> applied.
>>
>> Proposal
>> We use "CI Fix" rather than Blocker to determine whether an open PR should 
>> be merged before running CI.  Blocker will retain its previous meaning of a 
>> PR that should be merged before the next release is finished.  The process 
>> below describes how to resolve disagreements about whether the "CI Fix" 
>> label should be applied.
>> a. Only PRs with positive review should be marked with the "CI Fix" label.  
>> This should be done if both author and reviewer agree that it is 
>> appropriate, and a rationale should be given in a comment on the ticket.
>> b. If a PR becomes disputed (as described in this proposal), the "CI Fix" 
>> status can be voted on separately upon request; otherwise it should be 
>> applied if and only if positive review is applied.
>>
>> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
>> David
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CANnG189Rx%3DfXHDCQvDiTS0f_qHwRG9LbfiKKqph6DXuF%3Dd1zcw%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAGEwAAm6wy1c4mDnvfwT5Ow%2BCEYvheqKDyzOpTfjJZUd_Ur%3DNQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

[Vincent Delecroix]

+1

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 20:20, G. M.-S.  wrote:
>
>
> +1
>
> Guillermo
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 09:23, David Roe  wrote:
>>
>> With no further discussion on this thread, I'm calling a vote on a new 
>> process for resolving disagreements on a PR.
>>
>> Proposal
>> It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs directly on Github rather than 
>> bringing them to sage-devel.  Working things out amicably is preferable, and 
>> anyone is welcome to ask on sage-devel for more eyes on a PR.  If you notice 
>> a serious issue with a PR, it is acceptable to change it to Needs Work (and 
>> make a comment!) as an initial step, but if the author or reviewer do not 
>> agree then process below should be followed instead. This process is 
>> intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving disagreements, and full 
>> votes on sage-devel override the process described below.
>> a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone 
>> may mark a PR as disputed.
>> b. There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on opinions 
>> expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed via 
>> previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval).  The PR 
>> author is presumed to vote in favor; if they give up or no longer favor the 
>> PR they have the right to close the PR overall without any further voting.
>> c. If the total number of positive votes is at least twice the number of 
>> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to positive review; if 
>> the total number of positive votes is less than twice the number of negative 
>> votes, anyone involved may set the status to needs review.  When either of 
>> these actions is taken, the person changing the status must list the people 
>> they are counting as positive and negative votes in a comment using @ 
>> mentions.
>> d. The final decision on merging a disputed PR remains with the release 
>> manager, and we encourage the release manager to give enough time for 
>> everyone to express an opinion.
>>
>> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
>> David
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CANnG189YucyTQqiSYM7%2BBbgDHSauYdzsP9G%3DDP5gXYhgp15KTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAGEwAAmCE2QRbey4%2B42mXhA%3D8e7gz1zJO1%2BcF5fgYEpARMt1vQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[G. M.-S.]

+1

Guillermo

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 09:43, David Roe  wrote:

> The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in
> PR #37428 , in this thread
>  and then in this
> thread .  It is
> orthogonal to the ongoing vote in this thread
> .  With no further
> discussion, I'm calling a vote.
>
> *Background*
>
> Starting in Sage 10.2, PRs with the Blocker label have been merged into
> all other PRs before running CI; see the changelog
> 
> and this post
>  for
> more details.  This has led to disagreements about whether this label
> should be applied.
>
> *Proposal*
> We use "CI Fix" rather than Blocker to determine whether an open PR should
> be merged before running CI.  Blocker will retain its previous meaning of a
> PR that should be merged before the next release is finished.  The process
> below describes how to resolve disagreements about whether the "CI Fix"
> label should be applied.
> a. Only PRs with positive review should be marked with the "CI Fix"
> label.  This should be done if both author and reviewer agree that it is
> appropriate, and a rationale should be given in a comment on the ticket.
> b. If a PR becomes disputed (as described in this proposal
> ), the "CI Fix"
> status can be voted on separately upon request; otherwise it should be
> applied if and only if positive review is applied.
>
> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
> David
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CANnG189Rx%3DfXHDCQvDiTS0f_qHwRG9LbfiKKqph6DXuF%3Dd1zcw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

[G. M.-S.]

+1

Guillermo

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 09:23, David Roe  wrote:

> With no further discussion on this thread
> , I'm calling a
> vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR.
>
> *Proposal*
> It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs directly on Github rather than
> bringing them to sage-devel.  Working things out amicably is preferable,
> and anyone is welcome to ask on sage-devel for more eyes on a PR.  If you
> notice a serious issue with a PR, it is acceptable to change it to Needs
> Work (and make a comment!) as an initial step, but if the author or
> reviewer do not agree then process below should be followed instead. This
> process is intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving
> disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process described
> below.
> a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone
> may mark a PR as disputed.
> b. There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on
> opinions expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed
> via previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval).  The
> PR author is presumed to vote in favor; if they give up or no longer favor
> the PR they have the right to close the PR overall without any further
> voting.
> c. If the total number of positive votes is at least twice the number of
> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *positive review*;
> if the total number of positive votes is less than twice the number of
> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *needs review*.
> When either of these actions is taken, the person changing the status must
> list the people they are counting as positive and negative votes in a
> comment using @ mentions.
> d. The final decision on merging a disputed PR remains with the release
> manager, and we encourage the release manager to give enough time for
> everyone to express an opinion.
>
> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
> David
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CANnG189YucyTQqiSYM7%2BBbgDHSauYdzsP9G%3DDP5gXYhgp15KTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

[Edgar Costa]

+1

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CA%2BiQ7x5bndjQoJbZbXDER-duAmZ9iF046ebjvh6AnHpLU7qO6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

[Matthias Koeppe]

+1

... although I expect that further clarifications will be needed once we 
have tried to apply this process.

On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 12:23:39 AM UTC-8 David Roe wrote:

> With no further discussion on this thread 
> , I'm calling a 
> vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR.
>
> *Proposal*
> It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs directly on Github rather than 
> bringing them to sage-devel.  Working things out amicably is preferable, 
> and anyone is welcome to ask on sage-devel for more eyes on a PR.  If you 
> notice a serious issue with a PR, it is acceptable to change it to Needs 
> Work (and make a comment!) as an initial step, but if the author or 
> reviewer do not agree then process below should be followed instead. This 
> process is intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving 
> disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process described 
> below.
> a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone 
> may mark a PR as disputed.
> b. There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on 
> opinions expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed 
> via previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval).  The 
> PR author is presumed to vote in favor; if they give up or no longer favor 
> the PR they have the right to close the PR overall without any further 
> voting.
> c. If the total number of positive votes is at least twice the number of 
> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *positive review*; 
> if the total number of positive votes is less than twice the number of 
> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *needs review*.  
> When either of these actions is taken, the person changing the status must 
> list the people they are counting as positive and negative votes in a 
> comment using @ mentions.
> d. The final decision on merging a disputed PR remains with the release 
> manager, and we encourage the release manager to give enough time for 
> everyone to express an opinion.
>
> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
> David
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/73cd6261-16cf-44d1-909a-1bd0e62cb8a9n%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[Matthias Koeppe]

+1

On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 12:43:47 AM UTC-8 David Roe wrote:

> The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in 
> PR #37428 , in this thread 
>  and then in this 
> thread .  It is 
> orthogonal to the ongoing vote in this thread 
> .  With no further 
> discussion, I'm calling a vote.
>
> *Background*
>
> Starting in Sage 10.2, PRs with the Blocker label have been merged into 
> all other PRs before running CI; see the changelog 
> 
>  
> and this post 
>  for 
> more details.  This has led to disagreements about whether this label 
> should be applied.
>
> *Proposal*
> We use "CI Fix" rather than Blocker to determine whether an open PR should 
> be merged before running CI.  Blocker will retain its previous meaning of a 
> PR that should be merged before the next release is finished.  The process 
> below describes how to resolve disagreements about whether the "CI Fix" 
> label should be applied.
> a. Only PRs with positive review should be marked with the "CI Fix" 
> label.  This should be done if both author and reviewer agree that it is 
> appropriate, and a rationale should be given in a comment on the ticket.
> b. If a PR becomes disputed (as described in this proposal 
> ), the "CI Fix" 
> status can be voted on separately upon request; otherwise it should be 
> applied if and only if positive review is applied.
>
> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
> David
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/74c75394-ea4b-4553-be6a-79b7d8f71178n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[William Stein]

+1

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:03 AM Edgar Costa  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024, 10:49 Giacomo Pope  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 1:57:48 PM UTC Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:43 AM David Roe  wrote:
>>>
 The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks:
 in PR #37428 , in this
 thread  and then
 in this thread .
 It is orthogonal to the ongoing vote in this thread
 .  With no
 further discussion, I'm calling a vote.

 *Background*

 Starting in Sage 10.2, PRs with the Blocker label have been merged into
 all other PRs before running CI; see the changelog
 
 and this post
 
 for more details.  This has led to disagreements about whether this label
 should be applied.

 *Proposal*
 We use "CI Fix" rather than Blocker to determine whether an open PR
 should be merged before running CI.  Blocker will retain its previous
 meaning of a PR that should be merged before the next release is finished.
 The process below describes how to resolve disagreements about whether the
 "CI Fix" label should be applied.
 a. Only PRs with positive review should be marked with the "CI Fix"
 label.  This should be done if both author and reviewer agree that it is
 appropriate, and a rationale should be given in a comment on the ticket.
 b. If a PR becomes disputed (as described in this proposal
 ), the "CI Fix"
 status can be voted on separately upon request; otherwise it should be
 applied if and only if positive review is applied.

 Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
 David


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "sage-devel" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mYLUWXMU6AZKJGPKd2oz0AC_qAUjnGoD9Q9yixzNBC2w%40mail.gmail.com
 
 .

>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/77cc05b2-1c52-4aae-80ca-4d0ec0830e2dn%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CA%2BiQ7x40QryVx%2BPDDcGB4bJwrd%3D5NqbT94Xq5nSb0wxncwvGZQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
William (http://wstein.org)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CACLE5GAhb8Xf9M9ctUSM6R_P3fW1J_rLM%2B7JV6NMvggbqtbYYw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[Edgar Costa]

+1

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024, 10:49 Giacomo Pope  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 1:57:48 PM UTC Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:43 AM David Roe  wrote:
>>
>>> The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks:
>>> in PR #37428 , in this
>>> thread  and then
>>> in this thread .
>>> It is orthogonal to the ongoing vote in this thread
>>> .  With no
>>> further discussion, I'm calling a vote.
>>>
>>> *Background*
>>>
>>> Starting in Sage 10.2, PRs with the Blocker label have been merged into
>>> all other PRs before running CI; see the changelog
>>> 
>>> and this post
>>> 
>>> for more details.  This has led to disagreements about whether this label
>>> should be applied.
>>>
>>> *Proposal*
>>> We use "CI Fix" rather than Blocker to determine whether an open PR
>>> should be merged before running CI.  Blocker will retain its previous
>>> meaning of a PR that should be merged before the next release is finished.
>>> The process below describes how to resolve disagreements about whether the
>>> "CI Fix" label should be applied.
>>> a. Only PRs with positive review should be marked with the "CI Fix"
>>> label.  This should be done if both author and reviewer agree that it is
>>> appropriate, and a rationale should be given in a comment on the ticket.
>>> b. If a PR becomes disputed (as described in this proposal
>>> ), the "CI Fix"
>>> status can be voted on separately upon request; otherwise it should be
>>> applied if and only if positive review is applied.
>>>
>>> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mYLUWXMU6AZKJGPKd2oz0AC_qAUjnGoD9Q9yixzNBC2w%40mail.gmail.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/77cc05b2-1c52-4aae-80ca-4d0ec0830e2dn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CA%2BiQ7x40QryVx%2BPDDcGB4bJwrd%3D5NqbT94Xq5nSb0wxncwvGZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[Giacomo Pope]

+1

On Monday, March 4, 2024 at 1:57:48 PM UTC Dima Pasechnik wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:43 AM David Roe  wrote:
>
>> The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in 
>> PR #37428 , in this thread 
>>  and then in this 
>> thread .  It is 
>> orthogonal to the ongoing vote in this thread 
>> .  With no further 
>> discussion, I'm calling a vote.
>>
>> *Background*
>>
>> Starting in Sage 10.2, PRs with the Blocker label have been merged into 
>> all other PRs before running CI; see the changelog 
>> 
>>  
>> and this post 
>>  
>> for more details.  This has led to disagreements about whether this label 
>> should be applied.
>>
>> *Proposal*
>> We use "CI Fix" rather than Blocker to determine whether an open PR 
>> should be merged before running CI.  Blocker will retain its previous 
>> meaning of a PR that should be merged before the next release is finished.  
>> The process below describes how to resolve disagreements about whether the 
>> "CI Fix" label should be applied.
>> a. Only PRs with positive review should be marked with the "CI Fix" 
>> label.  This should be done if both author and reviewer agree that it is 
>> appropriate, and a rationale should be given in a comment on the ticket.
>> b. If a PR becomes disputed (as described in this proposal 
>> ), the "CI Fix" 
>> status can be voted on separately upon request; otherwise it should be 
>> applied if and only if positive review is applied.
>>
>> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
>> David
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "sage-devel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mYLUWXMU6AZKJGPKd2oz0AC_qAUjnGoD9Q9yixzNBC2w%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/77cc05b2-1c52-4aae-80ca-4d0ec0830e2dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage's Code of Conduct: proposed changes

['tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel]

I think Martin raises important points and agree that 0-4 should be added 
to the code of conduct (more in spirit than in this particular formulation; 
for example, I like the proposed reformulations of David). Point 5 is 
important as well, but I would say it's enough to spell out the rules 
governing labels in more detail in the developer documentation.

As a response to David's questions above (if I may share my perspective):

   - "As for the second half, I don't understand how it fits into a code of 
   conduct, since it seems aimed at internal processes (like how to cope if 
   your code is removed from Sage), rather than behavior." - Problems arise if 
   the identification with code is no longer only an internal view but does 
   lead to observable behavior (eg blocking the removal of certain parts of 
   the codebase).
   - Since only admins/maintainers can actually edit PRs/issues (or push to 
   PRs), this creates an imbalance of power and thus it should be clearly 
   defined what actions are okay or which are not. Perhaps it's a good idea to 
   even add a new section about the special rules applying to maintainer 
   actions (in addition to edits, closing of issues and PRs would be a topic).
   

On Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 2:17:59 AM UTC+8 John H Palmieri wrote:

> There are suggestions along maybe similar lines at 
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36844, and I am trying to think of 
> how we might incorporate your suggestions and the other ones. I've had the 
> thought before about other documents (like our department's by-laws) that 
> there should be two separate documents: the main one and then, separately, 
> commentary (like the Talmud). These suggestions currently feel more like 
> commentary to me, but one option would be to add a "commentary" section to 
> the code of conduct.
>
> -- 
> John
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2024 at 9:41:31 AM UTC-8 Martin R wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the thoughtful reply!  You gave me a lot to think about, 
>> and I'll do so over the weekend, rather than rushing.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Martin
>> On Friday 1 March 2024 at 18:21:59 UTC+1 David Roe wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for starting the conversation Martin.  I certainly think that 
>>> all of these suggestions are appropriate to discuss, and that sage-devel is 
>>> probably a better venue for discussion like this than the PR.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:49 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel <
>>> sage-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
 I would like to ask whether we might want to add some of the following 
 to the code of conduct, I could not find it covered there.

 I admit that it is unclear to me whether the discussion should be on 
 pull requests only.  I don't want to add the following to John's pull 
 request, because it definitely doesn't belong there.  Opening another one 
 makes things even harder to follow, so I'm trying to be brave.

 I imagine that the issues below may be cultural things, so I would 
 perfectly understand that all or some of it is perfectly OK in some 
 communities, and therefore should not be part of the sage code of conduct.

 I also admit that some of the issues below are attitudes that make it 
 hard for me to work on sage.  There were some situations in which I would 
 possibly have stopped contributing to sage, if sage wasn't a professional 
 necessity for me.

>>>
>>> I'm sorry to hear that there were situations like this.  If you think it 
>>> would be helpful to describe them in more detail privately (even if you're 
>>> not seeking any kind of action), feel free to write to the Code of Conduct 
>>> committee.
>>>  
>>> Here are my thoughts on your suggestions.  I think that some of them 
>>> should definitely be included, though it's not completely clear to me where 
>>> (it feels awkward to add yet another enumerated list).
>>>  
>>>
 0. sage is a community effort, and not the project of a single or even 
 a few persons.  Try to not identify yourself with the code in sage.

>>>  
>>> The community aspect of Sage is currently discussed in the introduction, 
>>> and perhaps we can tweak that to incorporate this suggestion.  As for the 
>>> second half, I don't understand how it fits into a code of conduct, since 
>>> it seems aimed at internal processes (like how to cope if your code is 
>>> removed from Sage), rather than behavior.
>>>
>>> Currently our introduction is "The Sage community is comprised of an 
>>> international mixture of mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers, 
>>> researchers, teachers, amateurs, and others with varied backgrounds. This 
>>> diversity is one of our strengths, but it can also lead to communication 
>>> problems and unhappiness. People who love working on Sage can more 
>>> effectively collaborate with others if they follow this code."  What do you 
>>> feel is missing from this that you're trying to include?
>>>  
>>>
 1. It is not OK to judge som

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[Dima Pasechnik]

+1

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:43 AM David Roe  wrote:

> The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in
> PR #37428 , in this thread
>  and then in this
> thread .  It is
> orthogonal to the ongoing vote in this thread
> .  With no further
> discussion, I'm calling a vote.
>
> *Background*
>
> Starting in Sage 10.2, PRs with the Blocker label have been merged into
> all other PRs before running CI; see the changelog
> 
> and this post
>  for
> more details.  This has led to disagreements about whether this label
> should be applied.
>
> *Proposal*
> We use "CI Fix" rather than Blocker to determine whether an open PR should
> be merged before running CI.  Blocker will retain its previous meaning of a
> PR that should be merged before the next release is finished.  The process
> below describes how to resolve disagreements about whether the "CI Fix"
> label should be applied.
> a. Only PRs with positive review should be marked with the "CI Fix"
> label.  This should be done if both author and reviewer agree that it is
> appropriate, and a rationale should be given in a comment on the ticket.
> b. If a PR becomes disputed (as described in this proposal
> ), the "CI Fix"
> status can be voted on separately upon request; otherwise it should be
> applied if and only if positive review is applied.
>
> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
> David
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mYLUWXMU6AZKJGPKd2oz0AC_qAUjnGoD9Q9yixzNBC2w%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq0ovg%2B0rLyJpDBaew5eFvSBr70GDHN%3Da4cPS6J2xFNiEA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

[Dima Pasechnik]

David,
how about team members who are blocked on GitHub.
For GitHub voting to work, this has to be sorted out first.

Dima

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:23 AM David Roe  wrote:

> With no further discussion on this thread
> , I'm calling a
> vote on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR.
>
> *Proposal*
> It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs directly on Github rather than
> bringing them to sage-devel.  Working things out amicably is preferable,
> and anyone is welcome to ask on sage-devel for more eyes on a PR.  If you
> notice a serious issue with a PR, it is acceptable to change it to Needs
> Work (and make a comment!) as an initial step, but if the author or
> reviewer do not agree then process below should be followed instead. This
> process is intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving
> disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process described
> below.
> a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone
> may mark a PR as disputed.
> b. There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on
> opinions expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed
> via previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval).  The
> PR author is presumed to vote in favor; if they give up or no longer favor
> the PR they have the right to close the PR overall without any further
> voting.
> c. If the total number of positive votes is at least twice the number of
> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *positive review*;
> if the total number of positive votes is less than twice the number of
> negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *needs review*.
> When either of these actions is taken, the person changing the status must
> list the people they are counting as positive and negative votes in a
> comment using @ mentions.
> d. The final decision on merging a disputed PR remains with the release
> manager, and we encourage the release manager to give enough time for
> everyone to express an opinion.
>
> Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
> David
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n4az3_s16E%3DANOv_o%2B0SvavHwnpqKWYuOznGWTJoXqEg%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq1%3D7Lo-WvhuOaQxubMX%3D2Vx%3DPcjACSivLQM3p4r786s%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[Kwankyu Lee]

+1

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/e95c029c-4488-4e68-9307-70d741c1ee1an%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] Re: VOTE: disputed PRs

[Kwankyu Lee]

+1

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2e3a2fdb-041d-44ad-af7e-ab12d62a9e04n%40googlegroups.com.

[sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

[David Roe]

The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in
PR #37428 , in this thread
 and then in this
thread .  It is
orthogonal to the ongoing vote in this thread
.  With no further
discussion, I'm calling a vote.

*Background*

Starting in Sage 10.2, PRs with the Blocker label have been merged into all
other PRs before running CI; see the changelog

and this post
 for
more details.  This has led to disagreements about whether this label
should be applied.

*Proposal*
We use "CI Fix" rather than Blocker to determine whether an open PR should
be merged before running CI.  Blocker will retain its previous meaning of a
PR that should be merged before the next release is finished.  The process
below describes how to resolve disagreements about whether the "CI Fix"
label should be applied.
a. Only PRs with positive review should be marked with the "CI Fix" label.
This should be done if both author and reviewer agree that it is
appropriate, and a rationale should be given in a comment on the ticket.
b. If a PR becomes disputed (as described in this proposal
), the "CI Fix"
status can be voted on separately upon request; otherwise it should be
applied if and only if positive review is applied.

Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_mYLUWXMU6AZKJGPKd2oz0AC_qAUjnGoD9Q9yixzNBC2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

[David Roe]

With no further discussion on this thread
, I'm calling a vote
on a new process for resolving disagreements on a PR.

*Proposal*
It is now allowed to vote on disputed PRs directly on Github rather than
bringing them to sage-devel.  Working things out amicably is preferable,
and anyone is welcome to ask on sage-devel for more eyes on a PR.  If you
notice a serious issue with a PR, it is acceptable to change it to Needs
Work (and make a comment!) as an initial step, but if the author or
reviewer do not agree then process below should be followed instead. This
process is intended as a lower-intensity method for resolving
disagreements, and full votes on sage-devel override the process described
below.
a. When there is disagreement about whether a PR should be merged, anyone
may mark a PR as disputed.
b. There is no scheduled vote, but rather an ongoing poll based on opinions
expressed by developers on the PR (these opinions can be expressed via
previous positive reviews or explicit comments giving approval).  The PR
author is presumed to vote in favor; if they give up or no longer favor the
PR they have the right to close the PR overall without any further voting.
c. If the total number of positive votes is at least twice the number of
negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *positive review*; if
the total number of positive votes is less than twice the number of
negative votes, anyone involved may set the status to *needs review*.  When
either of these actions is taken, the person changing the status must list
the people they are counting as positive and negative votes in a comment
using @ mentions.
d. The final decision on merging a disputed PR remains with the release
manager, and we encourage the release manager to give enough time for
everyone to express an opinion.

Voting will be open until Wednesday, March 13.
David

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n4az3_s16E%3DANOv_o%2B0SvavHwnpqKWYuOznGWTJoXqEg%40mail.gmail.com.