You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kie.apache.org by Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> on 2025/02/03 07:47:25 UTC
Re: [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote
Sure Jason. I don't think anything I wrote here is original. Apache
provides the minimum and then projects like Kafka add more on top of that.
I will find the different takes on this and reference them in the wiki page.
Toni
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jason Porter <li...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I have not given this a thorough read through just yet, but on a quick
> read through, I'm not seeing any references for things. I think we need to
> stay grounded with what the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) has in place
> (I know it isn't a lot) in general, and we can also pull ideas from other
> Top Level Projects (TLPs). I know this proposal idea for example is used in
> a couple of places: Groovy, Kafka, and probably others, I know for sure
> those two use a similar system. I don't think it makes sense for us to
> reinvent the wheel if we don't need to. It also helps others that are
> familiar with the way things are done in other projects to understand
> where/why we made decisions.
>
> Toni, would you be able to add references to the proposal wiki page?
>
> On 2025/01/31 08:20:00 Toni Rikkola wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is a proposal I created based on the discussion that happened in
> > [DISCUSSION] Discussion, proposal and voting process-Apache Mail Archives
> > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/tzqhh1qg9yr7v6wk0bwnk921y15yr0qk>
> >
> > It is time to eat my own dog food and prove discussion is not just a
> group
> > of people dreaming. This proposal will lead to a vote and action will be
> > taken if the vote is approved.
> >
> > The goal I have is to form community guidelines and this is the first
> item
> > and step we need to agree on.
> > Everyone is welcomed to give feedback and suggest additionals, removal,
> > fixing a type or change of wording. Preferred way is to use this list,
> but
> > if you direct message me I will reference the request here anonymously.
> >
> > I will edit the wiki page based on requests I see fitting and then pass
> it
> > to voting once I feel it is good enough.
> >
> > [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote -
> > Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation
> > <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+Community+guideline+to+define+discussion%2C+proposal+and+vote
> >
> >
> > Thank you
> > Toni Rikkola
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote
Posted by Toshiya Kobayashi <to...@gmail.com>.
Thank you, Toni.
It's a good read that clarifies my thoughts :)
Toshiya
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 1:16 AM Jason Porter <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> This is looking really good, thank you, Toni. Excellent work.
>
> On 2025/02/05 14:49:21 Toni Rikkola wrote:
> > Ok I added references for reasoning and how others are doing this.
> >
> > I also refactored the template for a proposal step. The request came
> from a
> > QA community member and this would help with the development-testing
> > process.
> >
> > If nothing else comes up. I will open a vote on Monday, that way we get
> > office days for voting time.
> >
> > Toni
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 10:59 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > #1
> > > I had a chat with Francisco in DMs. Trying to keep the actual voting
> out
> > > of the thread since it is a huge topic for us and for that reason we
> should
> > > isolate the problem and solve it in a dedicated thread.
> > >
> > > #2
> > > A QA community member has made some good points on what they would
> expect
> > > a proposal to include related to the Definition of Ready and Done. I
> have
> > > not done any changes based on that, but will do and inform this thread
> on
> > > every wiki page update. The goal is to have required and preferred
> topics
> > > similar to JEP 2: JEP Template <https://openjdk.org/jeps/2>
> > >
> > > #3
> > > As we can all see the Documentation jumped directly from discussion to
> > > vote. While the discussion part was moderated by Toshiya and he worked
> on a
> > > proposal base in discussion, the vote now has added content in it.
> Since it
> > > is a vote and also a comment in the thread from the vote lead says
> > > discussion has ended, giving a vote is the only way to interact.
> > >
> > > Skipping a step is still possible with the guideline I am proposing
> here.
> > > Problem with a missing proposal step is, no community interaction can
> be
> > > taken after the assignees have agreed to act on something. You can not
> > > change what is in the vote. It is a take it or leave it situation. You
> can
> > > leave a statement and perhaps the lead of the vote does a revote. The
> > > current proposal has several items in it, with a separate proposal
> thread
> > > each problematic item could be voted separately, then adjusting the
> > > proposal with the vote results.
> > >
> > > Taking all the steps results in a more open community. Increasing the
> > > feeling that we are actually a community that works together. Going
> > > directly to a VOTE or in the worst case to a PR with a significant
> change
> > > is easily seen as blackmailing and it adds friction. The steps do not
> slow
> > > you down. What I am doing here right now would take less than a week
> if I
> > > was in a hurry with this.
> > >
> > > FYI [PROPOSAL][VOTE] is used by many teams, in this guideline it
> would be
> > > just a [VOTE] (I don't think it matters how you write it).
> > >
> > > Toni
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:17 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
> > > ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Im king of puzzled
> > >> So, giving a -1 on a valid technical ground is "blocking attitude",
> > >> requires a counter proposal and a commitment of resources
> > >> And it seems that a -1 on a "procedure formality" (unless every PR
> > >> requires
> > >> a proposal in the list) is a valid argument, does not require a
> counter
> > >> proposal and non commitment of resources.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:47 PM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Ok, so that decision followed the path ticket->PR without mailing
> list.
> > >> The
> > >> > PR counts as a voting location and Porcelli is giving a -1 with a
> valid
> > >> > argument.
> > >> > It is always possible to escalate to ML and that is what Porcelli is
> > >> > asking.
> > >> >
> > >> > I did not yet include voting rules in this proposed guideline, but
> that
> > >> -1
> > >> > needs to be challenged if there are intentions to invalidate it.
> > >> > The -1 is due to a difference we are planning to have compared to
> Apache
> > >> > practice so the mailing list is a good place to continue on that.
> > >> >
> > >> > Toni
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
> > >> > ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Toni,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > One question, how do we manage to make all the aspects we are
> > >> discussing
> > >> > > here with the day by day reality of how this community is really
> > >> working?
> > >> > > See
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1749#issuecomment-2630540808
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:48 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Sure Jason. I don't think anything I wrote here is original.
> Apache
> > >> > > > provides the minimum and then projects like Kafka add more on
> top of
> > >> > > that.
> > >> > > > I will find the different takes on this and reference them in
> the
> > >> wiki
> > >> > > > page.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Toni
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jason Porter <
> > >> lightguardjp@apache.org>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > I have not given this a thorough read through just yet, but
> on a
> > >> > quick
> > >> > > > > read through, I'm not seeing any references for things. I
> think we
> > >> > need
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > stay grounded with what the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
> has
> > >> in
> > >> > > place
> > >> > > > > (I know it isn't a lot) in general, and we can also pull ideas
> > >> from
> > >> > > other
> > >> > > > > Top Level Projects (TLPs). I know this proposal idea for
> example
> > >> is
> > >> > > used
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > a couple of places: Groovy, Kafka, and probably others, I
> know for
> > >> > sure
> > >> > > > > those two use a similar system. I don't think it makes sense
> for
> > >> us
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > reinvent the wheel if we don't need to. It also helps others
> that
> > >> are
> > >> > > > > familiar with the way things are done in other projects to
> > >> understand
> > >> > > > > where/why we made decisions.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Toni, would you be able to add references to the proposal wiki
> > >> page?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On 2025/01/31 08:20:00 Toni Rikkola wrote:
> > >> > > > > > Hello,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > This is a proposal I created based on the discussion that
> > >> happened
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > > > [DISCUSSION] Discussion, proposal and voting process-Apache
> Mail
> > >> > > > Archives
> > >> > > > > > <
> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/tzqhh1qg9yr7v6wk0bwnk921y15yr0qk>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > It is time to eat my own dog food and prove discussion is
> not
> > >> just
> > >> > a
> > >> > > > > group
> > >> > > > > > of people dreaming. This proposal will lead to a vote and
> action
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > taken if the vote is approved.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The goal I have is to form community guidelines and this is
> the
> > >> > first
> > >> > > > > item
> > >> > > > > > and step we need to agree on.
> > >> > > > > > Everyone is welcomed to give feedback and suggest
> additionals,
> > >> > > removal,
> > >> > > > > > fixing a type or change of wording. Preferred way is to use
> this
> > >> > > list,
> > >> > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > if you direct message me I will reference the request here
> > >> > > anonymously.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I will edit the wiki page based on requests I see fitting
> and
> > >> then
> > >> > > pass
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > to voting once I feel it is good enough.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion,
> proposal
> > >> and
> > >> > > vote
> > >> > > > -
> > >> > > > > > Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation
> > >> > > > > > <
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+Community+guideline+to+define+discussion%2C+proposal+and+vote
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thank you
> > >> > > > > > Toni Rikkola
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote
Posted by Jason Porter <li...@apache.org>.
This is looking really good, thank you, Toni. Excellent work.
On 2025/02/05 14:49:21 Toni Rikkola wrote:
> Ok I added references for reasoning and how others are doing this.
>
> I also refactored the template for a proposal step. The request came from a
> QA community member and this would help with the development-testing
> process.
>
> If nothing else comes up. I will open a vote on Monday, that way we get
> office days for voting time.
>
> Toni
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 10:59 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > #1
> > I had a chat with Francisco in DMs. Trying to keep the actual voting out
> > of the thread since it is a huge topic for us and for that reason we should
> > isolate the problem and solve it in a dedicated thread.
> >
> > #2
> > A QA community member has made some good points on what they would expect
> > a proposal to include related to the Definition of Ready and Done. I have
> > not done any changes based on that, but will do and inform this thread on
> > every wiki page update. The goal is to have required and preferred topics
> > similar to JEP 2: JEP Template <https://openjdk.org/jeps/2>
> >
> > #3
> > As we can all see the Documentation jumped directly from discussion to
> > vote. While the discussion part was moderated by Toshiya and he worked on a
> > proposal base in discussion, the vote now has added content in it. Since it
> > is a vote and also a comment in the thread from the vote lead says
> > discussion has ended, giving a vote is the only way to interact.
> >
> > Skipping a step is still possible with the guideline I am proposing here.
> > Problem with a missing proposal step is, no community interaction can be
> > taken after the assignees have agreed to act on something. You can not
> > change what is in the vote. It is a take it or leave it situation. You can
> > leave a statement and perhaps the lead of the vote does a revote. The
> > current proposal has several items in it, with a separate proposal thread
> > each problematic item could be voted separately, then adjusting the
> > proposal with the vote results.
> >
> > Taking all the steps results in a more open community. Increasing the
> > feeling that we are actually a community that works together. Going
> > directly to a VOTE or in the worst case to a PR with a significant change
> > is easily seen as blackmailing and it adds friction. The steps do not slow
> > you down. What I am doing here right now would take less than a week if I
> > was in a hurry with this.
> >
> > FYI [PROPOSAL][VOTE] is used by many teams, in this guideline it would be
> > just a [VOTE] (I don't think it matters how you write it).
> >
> > Toni
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:17 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
> > ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Im king of puzzled
> >> So, giving a -1 on a valid technical ground is "blocking attitude",
> >> requires a counter proposal and a commitment of resources
> >> And it seems that a -1 on a "procedure formality" (unless every PR
> >> requires
> >> a proposal in the list) is a valid argument, does not require a counter
> >> proposal and non commitment of resources.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:47 PM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ok, so that decision followed the path ticket->PR without mailing list.
> >> The
> >> > PR counts as a voting location and Porcelli is giving a -1 with a valid
> >> > argument.
> >> > It is always possible to escalate to ML and that is what Porcelli is
> >> > asking.
> >> >
> >> > I did not yet include voting rules in this proposed guideline, but that
> >> -1
> >> > needs to be challenged if there are intentions to invalidate it.
> >> > The -1 is due to a difference we are planning to have compared to Apache
> >> > practice so the mailing list is a good place to continue on that.
> >> >
> >> > Toni
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
> >> > ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Toni,
> >> > >
> >> > > One question, how do we manage to make all the aspects we are
> >> discussing
> >> > > here with the day by day reality of how this community is really
> >> working?
> >> > > See
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1749#issuecomment-2630540808
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:48 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Sure Jason. I don't think anything I wrote here is original. Apache
> >> > > > provides the minimum and then projects like Kafka add more on top of
> >> > > that.
> >> > > > I will find the different takes on this and reference them in the
> >> wiki
> >> > > > page.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Toni
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jason Porter <
> >> lightguardjp@apache.org>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I have not given this a thorough read through just yet, but on a
> >> > quick
> >> > > > > read through, I'm not seeing any references for things. I think we
> >> > need
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > stay grounded with what the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) has
> >> in
> >> > > place
> >> > > > > (I know it isn't a lot) in general, and we can also pull ideas
> >> from
> >> > > other
> >> > > > > Top Level Projects (TLPs). I know this proposal idea for example
> >> is
> >> > > used
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > a couple of places: Groovy, Kafka, and probably others, I know for
> >> > sure
> >> > > > > those two use a similar system. I don't think it makes sense for
> >> us
> >> > to
> >> > > > > reinvent the wheel if we don't need to. It also helps others that
> >> are
> >> > > > > familiar with the way things are done in other projects to
> >> understand
> >> > > > > where/why we made decisions.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Toni, would you be able to add references to the proposal wiki
> >> page?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 2025/01/31 08:20:00 Toni Rikkola wrote:
> >> > > > > > Hello,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > This is a proposal I created based on the discussion that
> >> happened
> >> > in
> >> > > > > > [DISCUSSION] Discussion, proposal and voting process-Apache Mail
> >> > > > Archives
> >> > > > > > <
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/tzqhh1qg9yr7v6wk0bwnk921y15yr0qk>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > It is time to eat my own dog food and prove discussion is not
> >> just
> >> > a
> >> > > > > group
> >> > > > > > of people dreaming. This proposal will lead to a vote and action
> >> > will
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > taken if the vote is approved.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The goal I have is to form community guidelines and this is the
> >> > first
> >> > > > > item
> >> > > > > > and step we need to agree on.
> >> > > > > > Everyone is welcomed to give feedback and suggest additionals,
> >> > > removal,
> >> > > > > > fixing a type or change of wording. Preferred way is to use this
> >> > > list,
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > if you direct message me I will reference the request here
> >> > > anonymously.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I will edit the wiki page based on requests I see fitting and
> >> then
> >> > > pass
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > to voting once I feel it is good enough.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal
> >> and
> >> > > vote
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > > Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation
> >> > > > > > <
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+Community+guideline+to+define+discussion%2C+proposal+and+vote
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you
> >> > > > > > Toni Rikkola
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote
Posted by Gabriele Cardosi <ga...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, Tony!!
Il giorno mer 5 feb 2025 alle ore 15:51 Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>
ha scritto:
> Ok I added references for reasoning and how others are doing this.
>
> I also refactored the template for a proposal step. The request came from a
> QA community member and this would help with the development-testing
> process.
>
> If nothing else comes up. I will open a vote on Monday, that way we get
> office days for voting time.
>
> Toni
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 10:59 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > #1
> > I had a chat with Francisco in DMs. Trying to keep the actual voting out
> > of the thread since it is a huge topic for us and for that reason we
> should
> > isolate the problem and solve it in a dedicated thread.
> >
> > #2
> > A QA community member has made some good points on what they would expect
> > a proposal to include related to the Definition of Ready and Done. I have
> > not done any changes based on that, but will do and inform this thread on
> > every wiki page update. The goal is to have required and preferred topics
> > similar to JEP 2: JEP Template <https://openjdk.org/jeps/2>
> >
> > #3
> > As we can all see the Documentation jumped directly from discussion to
> > vote. While the discussion part was moderated by Toshiya and he worked
> on a
> > proposal base in discussion, the vote now has added content in it. Since
> it
> > is a vote and also a comment in the thread from the vote lead says
> > discussion has ended, giving a vote is the only way to interact.
> >
> > Skipping a step is still possible with the guideline I am proposing here.
> > Problem with a missing proposal step is, no community interaction can be
> > taken after the assignees have agreed to act on something. You can not
> > change what is in the vote. It is a take it or leave it situation. You
> can
> > leave a statement and perhaps the lead of the vote does a revote. The
> > current proposal has several items in it, with a separate proposal thread
> > each problematic item could be voted separately, then adjusting the
> > proposal with the vote results.
> >
> > Taking all the steps results in a more open community. Increasing the
> > feeling that we are actually a community that works together. Going
> > directly to a VOTE or in the worst case to a PR with a significant change
> > is easily seen as blackmailing and it adds friction. The steps do not
> slow
> > you down. What I am doing here right now would take less than a week if I
> > was in a hurry with this.
> >
> > FYI [PROPOSAL][VOTE] is used by many teams, in this guideline it would
> be
> > just a [VOTE] (I don't think it matters how you write it).
> >
> > Toni
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:17 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
> > ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Im king of puzzled
> >> So, giving a -1 on a valid technical ground is "blocking attitude",
> >> requires a counter proposal and a commitment of resources
> >> And it seems that a -1 on a "procedure formality" (unless every PR
> >> requires
> >> a proposal in the list) is a valid argument, does not require a counter
> >> proposal and non commitment of resources.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:47 PM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ok, so that decision followed the path ticket->PR without mailing
> list.
> >> The
> >> > PR counts as a voting location and Porcelli is giving a -1 with a
> valid
> >> > argument.
> >> > It is always possible to escalate to ML and that is what Porcelli is
> >> > asking.
> >> >
> >> > I did not yet include voting rules in this proposed guideline, but
> that
> >> -1
> >> > needs to be challenged if there are intentions to invalidate it.
> >> > The -1 is due to a difference we are planning to have compared to
> Apache
> >> > practice so the mailing list is a good place to continue on that.
> >> >
> >> > Toni
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
> >> > ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Toni,
> >> > >
> >> > > One question, how do we manage to make all the aspects we are
> >> discussing
> >> > > here with the day by day reality of how this community is really
> >> working?
> >> > > See
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1749#issuecomment-2630540808
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:48 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Sure Jason. I don't think anything I wrote here is original.
> Apache
> >> > > > provides the minimum and then projects like Kafka add more on top
> of
> >> > > that.
> >> > > > I will find the different takes on this and reference them in the
> >> wiki
> >> > > > page.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Toni
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jason Porter <
> >> lightguardjp@apache.org>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I have not given this a thorough read through just yet, but on a
> >> > quick
> >> > > > > read through, I'm not seeing any references for things. I think
> we
> >> > need
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > stay grounded with what the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) has
> >> in
> >> > > place
> >> > > > > (I know it isn't a lot) in general, and we can also pull ideas
> >> from
> >> > > other
> >> > > > > Top Level Projects (TLPs). I know this proposal idea for example
> >> is
> >> > > used
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > a couple of places: Groovy, Kafka, and probably others, I know
> for
> >> > sure
> >> > > > > those two use a similar system. I don't think it makes sense for
> >> us
> >> > to
> >> > > > > reinvent the wheel if we don't need to. It also helps others
> that
> >> are
> >> > > > > familiar with the way things are done in other projects to
> >> understand
> >> > > > > where/why we made decisions.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Toni, would you be able to add references to the proposal wiki
> >> page?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 2025/01/31 08:20:00 Toni Rikkola wrote:
> >> > > > > > Hello,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > This is a proposal I created based on the discussion that
> >> happened
> >> > in
> >> > > > > > [DISCUSSION] Discussion, proposal and voting process-Apache
> Mail
> >> > > > Archives
> >> > > > > > <
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/tzqhh1qg9yr7v6wk0bwnk921y15yr0qk>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > It is time to eat my own dog food and prove discussion is not
> >> just
> >> > a
> >> > > > > group
> >> > > > > > of people dreaming. This proposal will lead to a vote and
> action
> >> > will
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > taken if the vote is approved.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The goal I have is to form community guidelines and this is
> the
> >> > first
> >> > > > > item
> >> > > > > > and step we need to agree on.
> >> > > > > > Everyone is welcomed to give feedback and suggest additionals,
> >> > > removal,
> >> > > > > > fixing a type or change of wording. Preferred way is to use
> this
> >> > > list,
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > if you direct message me I will reference the request here
> >> > > anonymously.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I will edit the wiki page based on requests I see fitting and
> >> then
> >> > > pass
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > to voting once I feel it is good enough.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal
> >> and
> >> > > vote
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > > Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation
> >> > > > > > <
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+Community+guideline+to+define+discussion%2C+proposal+and+vote
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you
> >> > > > > > Toni Rikkola
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote
Posted by Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>.
Ok I added references for reasoning and how others are doing this.
I also refactored the template for a proposal step. The request came from a
QA community member and this would help with the development-testing
process.
If nothing else comes up. I will open a vote on Monday, that way we get
office days for voting time.
Toni
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 10:59 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> #1
> I had a chat with Francisco in DMs. Trying to keep the actual voting out
> of the thread since it is a huge topic for us and for that reason we should
> isolate the problem and solve it in a dedicated thread.
>
> #2
> A QA community member has made some good points on what they would expect
> a proposal to include related to the Definition of Ready and Done. I have
> not done any changes based on that, but will do and inform this thread on
> every wiki page update. The goal is to have required and preferred topics
> similar to JEP 2: JEP Template <https://openjdk.org/jeps/2>
>
> #3
> As we can all see the Documentation jumped directly from discussion to
> vote. While the discussion part was moderated by Toshiya and he worked on a
> proposal base in discussion, the vote now has added content in it. Since it
> is a vote and also a comment in the thread from the vote lead says
> discussion has ended, giving a vote is the only way to interact.
>
> Skipping a step is still possible with the guideline I am proposing here.
> Problem with a missing proposal step is, no community interaction can be
> taken after the assignees have agreed to act on something. You can not
> change what is in the vote. It is a take it or leave it situation. You can
> leave a statement and perhaps the lead of the vote does a revote. The
> current proposal has several items in it, with a separate proposal thread
> each problematic item could be voted separately, then adjusting the
> proposal with the vote results.
>
> Taking all the steps results in a more open community. Increasing the
> feeling that we are actually a community that works together. Going
> directly to a VOTE or in the worst case to a PR with a significant change
> is easily seen as blackmailing and it adds friction. The steps do not slow
> you down. What I am doing here right now would take less than a week if I
> was in a hurry with this.
>
> FYI [PROPOSAL][VOTE] is used by many teams, in this guideline it would be
> just a [VOTE] (I don't think it matters how you write it).
>
> Toni
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:17 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
> ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Im king of puzzled
>> So, giving a -1 on a valid technical ground is "blocking attitude",
>> requires a counter proposal and a commitment of resources
>> And it seems that a -1 on a "procedure formality" (unless every PR
>> requires
>> a proposal in the list) is a valid argument, does not require a counter
>> proposal and non commitment of resources.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:47 PM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, so that decision followed the path ticket->PR without mailing list.
>> The
>> > PR counts as a voting location and Porcelli is giving a -1 with a valid
>> > argument.
>> > It is always possible to escalate to ML and that is what Porcelli is
>> > asking.
>> >
>> > I did not yet include voting rules in this proposed guideline, but that
>> -1
>> > needs to be challenged if there are intentions to invalidate it.
>> > The -1 is due to a difference we are planning to have compared to Apache
>> > practice so the mailing list is a good place to continue on that.
>> >
>> > Toni
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
>> > ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Toni,
>> > >
>> > > One question, how do we manage to make all the aspects we are
>> discussing
>> > > here with the day by day reality of how this community is really
>> working?
>> > > See
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1749#issuecomment-2630540808
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:48 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Sure Jason. I don't think anything I wrote here is original. Apache
>> > > > provides the minimum and then projects like Kafka add more on top of
>> > > that.
>> > > > I will find the different takes on this and reference them in the
>> wiki
>> > > > page.
>> > > >
>> > > > Toni
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jason Porter <
>> lightguardjp@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I have not given this a thorough read through just yet, but on a
>> > quick
>> > > > > read through, I'm not seeing any references for things. I think we
>> > need
>> > > > to
>> > > > > stay grounded with what the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) has
>> in
>> > > place
>> > > > > (I know it isn't a lot) in general, and we can also pull ideas
>> from
>> > > other
>> > > > > Top Level Projects (TLPs). I know this proposal idea for example
>> is
>> > > used
>> > > > in
>> > > > > a couple of places: Groovy, Kafka, and probably others, I know for
>> > sure
>> > > > > those two use a similar system. I don't think it makes sense for
>> us
>> > to
>> > > > > reinvent the wheel if we don't need to. It also helps others that
>> are
>> > > > > familiar with the way things are done in other projects to
>> understand
>> > > > > where/why we made decisions.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Toni, would you be able to add references to the proposal wiki
>> page?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 2025/01/31 08:20:00 Toni Rikkola wrote:
>> > > > > > Hello,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > This is a proposal I created based on the discussion that
>> happened
>> > in
>> > > > > > [DISCUSSION] Discussion, proposal and voting process-Apache Mail
>> > > > Archives
>> > > > > > <
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/tzqhh1qg9yr7v6wk0bwnk921y15yr0qk>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It is time to eat my own dog food and prove discussion is not
>> just
>> > a
>> > > > > group
>> > > > > > of people dreaming. This proposal will lead to a vote and action
>> > will
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > taken if the vote is approved.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The goal I have is to form community guidelines and this is the
>> > first
>> > > > > item
>> > > > > > and step we need to agree on.
>> > > > > > Everyone is welcomed to give feedback and suggest additionals,
>> > > removal,
>> > > > > > fixing a type or change of wording. Preferred way is to use this
>> > > list,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > if you direct message me I will reference the request here
>> > > anonymously.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I will edit the wiki page based on requests I see fitting and
>> then
>> > > pass
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > to voting once I feel it is good enough.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal
>> and
>> > > vote
>> > > > -
>> > > > > > Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation
>> > > > > > <
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+Community+guideline+to+define+discussion%2C+proposal+and+vote
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you
>> > > > > > Toni Rikkola
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote
Posted by Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>.
#1
I had a chat with Francisco in DMs. Trying to keep the actual voting out of
the thread since it is a huge topic for us and for that reason we should
isolate the problem and solve it in a dedicated thread.
#2
A QA community member has made some good points on what they would expect a
proposal to include related to the Definition of Ready and Done. I have not
done any changes based on that, but will do and inform this thread on every
wiki page update. The goal is to have required and preferred topics similar
to JEP 2: JEP Template <https://openjdk.org/jeps/2>
#3
As we can all see the Documentation jumped directly from discussion to
vote. While the discussion part was moderated by Toshiya and he worked on a
proposal base in discussion, the vote now has added content in it. Since it
is a vote and also a comment in the thread from the vote lead says
discussion has ended, giving a vote is the only way to interact.
Skipping a step is still possible with the guideline I am proposing here.
Problem with a missing proposal step is, no community interaction can be
taken after the assignees have agreed to act on something. You can not
change what is in the vote. It is a take it or leave it situation. You can
leave a statement and perhaps the lead of the vote does a revote. The
current proposal has several items in it, with a separate proposal thread
each problematic item could be voted separately, then adjusting the
proposal with the vote results.
Taking all the steps results in a more open community. Increasing the
feeling that we are actually a community that works together. Going
directly to a VOTE or in the worst case to a PR with a significant change
is easily seen as blackmailing and it adds friction. The steps do not slow
you down. What I am doing here right now would take less than a week if I
was in a hurry with this.
FYI [PROPOSAL][VOTE] is used by many teams, in this guideline it would be
just a [VOTE] (I don't think it matters how you write it).
Toni
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:17 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
> Im king of puzzled
> So, giving a -1 on a valid technical ground is "blocking attitude",
> requires a counter proposal and a commitment of resources
> And it seems that a -1 on a "procedure formality" (unless every PR requires
> a proposal in the list) is a valid argument, does not require a counter
> proposal and non commitment of resources.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:47 PM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, so that decision followed the path ticket->PR without mailing list.
> The
> > PR counts as a voting location and Porcelli is giving a -1 with a valid
> > argument.
> > It is always possible to escalate to ML and that is what Porcelli is
> > asking.
> >
> > I did not yet include voting rules in this proposed guideline, but that
> -1
> > needs to be challenged if there are intentions to invalidate it.
> > The -1 is due to a difference we are planning to have compared to Apache
> > practice so the mailing list is a good place to continue on that.
> >
> > Toni
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
> > ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Toni,
> > >
> > > One question, how do we manage to make all the aspects we are
> discussing
> > > here with the day by day reality of how this community is really
> working?
> > > See
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1749#issuecomment-2630540808
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:48 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sure Jason. I don't think anything I wrote here is original. Apache
> > > > provides the minimum and then projects like Kafka add more on top of
> > > that.
> > > > I will find the different takes on this and reference them in the
> wiki
> > > > page.
> > > >
> > > > Toni
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jason Porter <
> lightguardjp@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have not given this a thorough read through just yet, but on a
> > quick
> > > > > read through, I'm not seeing any references for things. I think we
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > stay grounded with what the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) has in
> > > place
> > > > > (I know it isn't a lot) in general, and we can also pull ideas from
> > > other
> > > > > Top Level Projects (TLPs). I know this proposal idea for example is
> > > used
> > > > in
> > > > > a couple of places: Groovy, Kafka, and probably others, I know for
> > sure
> > > > > those two use a similar system. I don't think it makes sense for us
> > to
> > > > > reinvent the wheel if we don't need to. It also helps others that
> are
> > > > > familiar with the way things are done in other projects to
> understand
> > > > > where/why we made decisions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Toni, would you be able to add references to the proposal wiki
> page?
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2025/01/31 08:20:00 Toni Rikkola wrote:
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a proposal I created based on the discussion that
> happened
> > in
> > > > > > [DISCUSSION] Discussion, proposal and voting process-Apache Mail
> > > > Archives
> > > > > > <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/tzqhh1qg9yr7v6wk0bwnk921y15yr0qk>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is time to eat my own dog food and prove discussion is not
> just
> > a
> > > > > group
> > > > > > of people dreaming. This proposal will lead to a vote and action
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > taken if the vote is approved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The goal I have is to form community guidelines and this is the
> > first
> > > > > item
> > > > > > and step we need to agree on.
> > > > > > Everyone is welcomed to give feedback and suggest additionals,
> > > removal,
> > > > > > fixing a type or change of wording. Preferred way is to use this
> > > list,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > if you direct message me I will reference the request here
> > > anonymously.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will edit the wiki page based on requests I see fitting and
> then
> > > pass
> > > > > it
> > > > > > to voting once I feel it is good enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and
> > > vote
> > > > -
> > > > > > Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation
> > > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+Community+guideline+to+define+discussion%2C+proposal+and+vote
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > Toni Rikkola
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote
Posted by Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <ft...@redhat.com>.
Im king of puzzled
So, giving a -1 on a valid technical ground is "blocking attitude",
requires a counter proposal and a commitment of resources
And it seems that a -1 on a "procedure formality" (unless every PR requires
a proposal in the list) is a valid argument, does not require a counter
proposal and non commitment of resources.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:47 PM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Ok, so that decision followed the path ticket->PR without mailing list. The
> PR counts as a voting location and Porcelli is giving a -1 with a valid
> argument.
> It is always possible to escalate to ML and that is what Porcelli is
> asking.
>
> I did not yet include voting rules in this proposed guideline, but that -1
> needs to be challenged if there are intentions to invalidate it.
> The -1 is due to a difference we are planning to have compared to Apache
> practice so the mailing list is a good place to continue on that.
>
> Toni
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
> ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Toni,
> >
> > One question, how do we manage to make all the aspects we are discussing
> > here with the day by day reality of how this community is really working?
> > See
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1749#issuecomment-2630540808
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:48 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sure Jason. I don't think anything I wrote here is original. Apache
> > > provides the minimum and then projects like Kafka add more on top of
> > that.
> > > I will find the different takes on this and reference them in the wiki
> > > page.
> > >
> > > Toni
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jason Porter <li...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have not given this a thorough read through just yet, but on a
> quick
> > > > read through, I'm not seeing any references for things. I think we
> need
> > > to
> > > > stay grounded with what the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) has in
> > place
> > > > (I know it isn't a lot) in general, and we can also pull ideas from
> > other
> > > > Top Level Projects (TLPs). I know this proposal idea for example is
> > used
> > > in
> > > > a couple of places: Groovy, Kafka, and probably others, I know for
> sure
> > > > those two use a similar system. I don't think it makes sense for us
> to
> > > > reinvent the wheel if we don't need to. It also helps others that are
> > > > familiar with the way things are done in other projects to understand
> > > > where/why we made decisions.
> > > >
> > > > Toni, would you be able to add references to the proposal wiki page?
> > > >
> > > > On 2025/01/31 08:20:00 Toni Rikkola wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a proposal I created based on the discussion that happened
> in
> > > > > [DISCUSSION] Discussion, proposal and voting process-Apache Mail
> > > Archives
> > > > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/tzqhh1qg9yr7v6wk0bwnk921y15yr0qk>
> > > > >
> > > > > It is time to eat my own dog food and prove discussion is not just
> a
> > > > group
> > > > > of people dreaming. This proposal will lead to a vote and action
> will
> > > be
> > > > > taken if the vote is approved.
> > > > >
> > > > > The goal I have is to form community guidelines and this is the
> first
> > > > item
> > > > > and step we need to agree on.
> > > > > Everyone is welcomed to give feedback and suggest additionals,
> > removal,
> > > > > fixing a type or change of wording. Preferred way is to use this
> > list,
> > > > but
> > > > > if you direct message me I will reference the request here
> > anonymously.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will edit the wiki page based on requests I see fitting and then
> > pass
> > > > it
> > > > > to voting once I feel it is good enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and
> > vote
> > > -
> > > > > Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation
> > > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+Community+guideline+to+define+discussion%2C+proposal+and+vote
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > > Toni Rikkola
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote
Posted by Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com>.
Ok, so that decision followed the path ticket->PR without mailing list. The
PR counts as a voting location and Porcelli is giving a -1 with a valid
argument.
It is always possible to escalate to ML and that is what Porcelli is asking.
I did not yet include voting rules in this proposed guideline, but that -1
needs to be challenged if there are intentions to invalidate it.
The -1 is due to a difference we are planning to have compared to Apache
practice so the mailing list is a good place to continue on that.
Toni
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <
ftirados@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Toni,
>
> One question, how do we manage to make all the aspects we are discussing
> here with the day by day reality of how this community is really working?
> See
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1749#issuecomment-2630540808
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:48 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure Jason. I don't think anything I wrote here is original. Apache
> > provides the minimum and then projects like Kafka add more on top of
> that.
> > I will find the different takes on this and reference them in the wiki
> > page.
> >
> > Toni
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jason Porter <li...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have not given this a thorough read through just yet, but on a quick
> > > read through, I'm not seeing any references for things. I think we need
> > to
> > > stay grounded with what the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) has in
> place
> > > (I know it isn't a lot) in general, and we can also pull ideas from
> other
> > > Top Level Projects (TLPs). I know this proposal idea for example is
> used
> > in
> > > a couple of places: Groovy, Kafka, and probably others, I know for sure
> > > those two use a similar system. I don't think it makes sense for us to
> > > reinvent the wheel if we don't need to. It also helps others that are
> > > familiar with the way things are done in other projects to understand
> > > where/why we made decisions.
> > >
> > > Toni, would you be able to add references to the proposal wiki page?
> > >
> > > On 2025/01/31 08:20:00 Toni Rikkola wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > This is a proposal I created based on the discussion that happened in
> > > > [DISCUSSION] Discussion, proposal and voting process-Apache Mail
> > Archives
> > > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/tzqhh1qg9yr7v6wk0bwnk921y15yr0qk>
> > > >
> > > > It is time to eat my own dog food and prove discussion is not just a
> > > group
> > > > of people dreaming. This proposal will lead to a vote and action will
> > be
> > > > taken if the vote is approved.
> > > >
> > > > The goal I have is to form community guidelines and this is the first
> > > item
> > > > and step we need to agree on.
> > > > Everyone is welcomed to give feedback and suggest additionals,
> removal,
> > > > fixing a type or change of wording. Preferred way is to use this
> list,
> > > but
> > > > if you direct message me I will reference the request here
> anonymously.
> > > >
> > > > I will edit the wiki page based on requests I see fitting and then
> pass
> > > it
> > > > to voting once I feel it is good enough.
> > > >
> > > > [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and
> vote
> > -
> > > > Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation
> > > > <
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+Community+guideline+to+define+discussion%2C+proposal+and+vote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > > Toni Rikkola
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote
Posted by Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <ft...@redhat.com>.
Hi Toni,
One question, how do we manage to make all the aspects we are discussing
here with the day by day reality of how this community is really working?
See
https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1749#issuecomment-2630540808
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 8:48 AM Toni Rikkola <tr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Sure Jason. I don't think anything I wrote here is original. Apache
> provides the minimum and then projects like Kafka add more on top of that.
> I will find the different takes on this and reference them in the wiki
> page.
>
> Toni
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jason Porter <li...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I have not given this a thorough read through just yet, but on a quick
> > read through, I'm not seeing any references for things. I think we need
> to
> > stay grounded with what the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) has in place
> > (I know it isn't a lot) in general, and we can also pull ideas from other
> > Top Level Projects (TLPs). I know this proposal idea for example is used
> in
> > a couple of places: Groovy, Kafka, and probably others, I know for sure
> > those two use a similar system. I don't think it makes sense for us to
> > reinvent the wheel if we don't need to. It also helps others that are
> > familiar with the way things are done in other projects to understand
> > where/why we made decisions.
> >
> > Toni, would you be able to add references to the proposal wiki page?
> >
> > On 2025/01/31 08:20:00 Toni Rikkola wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This is a proposal I created based on the discussion that happened in
> > > [DISCUSSION] Discussion, proposal and voting process-Apache Mail
> Archives
> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/tzqhh1qg9yr7v6wk0bwnk921y15yr0qk>
> > >
> > > It is time to eat my own dog food and prove discussion is not just a
> > group
> > > of people dreaming. This proposal will lead to a vote and action will
> be
> > > taken if the vote is approved.
> > >
> > > The goal I have is to form community guidelines and this is the first
> > item
> > > and step we need to agree on.
> > > Everyone is welcomed to give feedback and suggest additionals, removal,
> > > fixing a type or change of wording. Preferred way is to use this list,
> > but
> > > if you direct message me I will reference the request here anonymously.
> > >
> > > I will edit the wiki page based on requests I see fitting and then pass
> > it
> > > to voting once I feel it is good enough.
> > >
> > > [PROPOSAL] Community guideline to define discussion, proposal and vote
> -
> > > Apache KIE - Apache Software Foundation
> > > <
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KIE/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+Community+guideline+to+define+discussion%2C+proposal+and+vote
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Toni Rikkola
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@kie.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@kie.apache.org
> >
> >
>