On Mon, 4 Dec 2023, George Dunlap wrote: > And how do we give people practical options to respond to a maintainer > who they think is being "picky"
If a maintainer is too picky the contributor and the other maintainers should say that the patch is good enough in their view. If the maintainers disagree (on that topic or another) the new informal voting rule should help us move forward faster. The informal voting would have helped us move forward faster in the original thread. On Mon, 4 Dec 2023, George Dunlap wrote: > the chance of a vote of the committers being out of sync with the > community is fairly small. But of course, small is not impossible. > [...] Hence the community-wide survey. Yes. If someone cares about the outcome, and they are not happy with the informal vote, then they need to call for a formal vote. But maintainers/committers might not always be the right people to escalate the voting to. Yes committers' opinions should count, but certain things have more to do with our users and the way they understand our documentation than implementation correctness. For these things, our users' opinions should count as much as ours. So I can see that in those cases, if someone is not happy with the informal vote, the best next step would be a community-wide survey like Kelly did here. That's a good idea. I don't think that's written anywhere in our governance specifically, but I think it would be a good addition.
