[Pulp-dev] RFC process

[Brian Bouterse]

I want to share some ideas on a possible proposal process. It's inspired by
processes in the Foreman, Python, and Django communities along with several
discussions I've had with core and community users. This is written as a
concrete proposal, but it is 100% changeable.

I'm doing the meta thing and using the process I'm proposing to propose the
process. The proposal is here [0]. It's unmerged (not the process) because
I suspect we'll want a dedicated repo. This proposal, if adopted, is still
a living document (like Python PEP 0001) so even if its approved it would
still be an evolving document.

Feedback and collaboration is welcome!

[0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50

All the best,
Brian

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:01 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> I also like the idea of using plan.io for our RFCs. The only thing that
> github or etherpad offers over plan.io is the ability to edit/update the
> RFC. If the RFC is in the body of the story/task in Redmine, then I think
> it can only be edited by admins. Maybe we can use the comments or not worry
> about editing the RFC though.
>
> There were also some other points brought up this past week about
> RFCs—mostly around workflows. One important thing I forgot to consider is
> how to accept RFCs. Should we vote on them? Or perhaps try to arrive at
> some sort of consensus?
>
>
> David
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I think all mentioned options could be used, but we need to have a
>> starting point. Something that would track a discussion for a long time.
>> And i lean towards ---> open a story/task (as a starting point).
>> Having a story/task opened we can always reference it in mail discussion
>> or etherpad.
>> Why i prefer to have all/most of the discussion happen on the story/task?
>> Because i cannot guarantee that i will not miss somehow the email or
>> etherpad. I actually often find myself trying to dig through dozens of
>> mails to find the right one. Same with the etherpads :)
>> Because i receive notifications when someone adds a comment on the
>> task/story, even after one month or two. This does not happen with
>> etherpad, and i actually will not see the new comments/ideas until i will
>> check the pad by myself.
>> Periodically. From time to time. Remembering the right pad number, and of
>> course i do not remember it, so i will need to dig into my mails to find it
>> out.
>>
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ina Panova
>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>>
>> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:59 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the things that came up in our retrospective is that we don’t
>>> have a formal way to propose changes to our codebase and processes (aka
>>> RFCs). This was motivated in part by the recent discussion on merging
>>> forward commits on our pulp-dev mailing list.
>>>
>>> I'd like to maybe discuss a way we can propose RFCs and then document
>>> this process in our docs. It sounds like there has already been some
>>> discussion about how to handle RFCs so I apologize coming into this without
>>> having any background.
>>>
>>> Thinking through RFCs, I see two things to address. First is the actual
>>> format of the RFC. I see some RFCs in plan.io but it doesn’t seem like
>>> there’s a standard way of formatting an RFC. Should there be? For
>>> reference, here's the template for foreman RFCs. I think it might serve as
>>> a good starting point:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/theforeman/rfcs/blob/master/0000-template.md
>>>
>>> Secondly, there’s the question of where to discuss and archive RFCs.
>>> Some possible options:
>>>
>>> 1. Open a story or task on plan.io
>>> 2. Use a GitHub repo to store and discuss RFCs (e.g.
>>> https://github.com/theforeman/rfcs)
>>> 3. Write the RFC on an Etherpad and once accepted, open a plan.io issue.
>>> 4. Just send out RFCs to the mailing list
>>> 5. Something else?
>>>
>>> I was thinking we could also use the mailing list in addition to options
>>> 1-3 by sending out an email pointing people to the actual RFC.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170213/58336868/attachment.htm>