[Pulp-dev] RFC process

Mon Feb 27 21:54:42 UTC 2017

I pushed another version based on feedback. The changes came as a new
commit so you can see them there. I have 2 areas that I want to discuss
before merging.

== proposed change 1 ==
I want really want beautifully readable proposals on pulpproject.org. That
being said, I think we should pull that out of this proposal and instead go
with:
* A dedicated repo with this proposal's text as a README at the root. This
would effectively adopt @mhrivnak's comment here[0].
* We can figure out how to get those onto pulpproject.org as a separate
effort

== proposed change 2==
Also I want to have the proposals live as a pull request until they are
decided on. The current proposal has them being merged regularly. This
would reduce friction by having proposals be created/revised without a
single core dev needing to be involved. Also collaborators can push to each
other's branches with github permissions so collaboration is still very
possible. In fact @daviddavis did that with this meta PR. This part is
basically written here [1] as a change.

[0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/#discussion_r103085714
[1]:
https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R284

Comments and ideas are welcome either via e-mail or on the PR.

Thanks!
Brian

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> The things that I like about this proposal:
>
> - The proposals are always merged so the community can reference them in
> the future even if the proposal is not adopted. I like learning from
> history.
> - Revisions to the proposal are additional commits stored in git. Having a
> record of changes can be valuable as the proposal lives on and evolves.
> - All the proposals are available on pulpproject.org or some other
> wesbsite for anyone to see - including search engines.
>
> I am not too thrilled about the discussion living separate from the
> proposal, but I am a fan of our mailing lists. I would be happy with this
> proposal being merged as is so we can announce it for voting and/or further
> discussion on pulp-dev list.
>
> -Dennis
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I pushed a new version based on feedback on the PR. It outlines several
>> alternatives that we should consider along with downsides.
>>
>> What about leaving it as a pull request for longer?
>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R277>
>> What about using Github for discussion?
>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R292>
>> We could store the PEPs in Redmine. Why aren't we using Redmine?
>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R262>
>>
>> There are also Downsides
>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R250>
>> of this proposal.
>>
>> My opinion is a +1 to leaving it as a pull request for longer to allow
>> more autonomy for creation and revision of proposals. Also, we can
>> additionally use Github for feedback, but that email threaded discussion
>> should also be allowed to include a broader input from users who don't live
>> in Github like most of us do. Both of these not-yet-done simple rewrites
>> would remove these from the list of alternatives and incorporate them into
>> the proposal itself. I'm happy to make such changes with input from others.
>>
>> Also in the Unresolved Questions
>> <https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/50/files#diff-65d93959a5eea99a63191c1a80e105b4R309>
>> section having an acronym or initialization of a name for these would be
>> nice.
>>
>> It would be great to get feedback by 00:00 UTC on Tuesday the 28th
>> (that's 7pm on Feb 28th). I'll try to be more responsive with the edits
>> also.
>>
>> Thanks for the input so far.
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Elyezer Rezende <erezende at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to comment about the C4 [1] which is "the Collective Code
>>> Construction Contract (C4), [...], aimed at providing an optimal
>>> collaboration model for free software projects".
>>>
>>> It does not mention about creating RFCs specifically but provides some
>>> guidelines that may help when implementing them.
>>>
>>> [1] https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Elyézer Rezende
>>> Senior Quality Engineer
>>> irc: elyezer
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170227/43e2423b/attachment.htm>