[Pulp-dev] RFC process

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Thu Mar 16 22:34:00 UTC 2017 

After more discussion on the PR, I've pushed what I think are the final
revisions. These include moving it to a dedicated repo in the Pulp
organization. As such the PR is now here:
https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/1

If there are any last comments please let me know, otherwise I plan to
merge this tomorrow. It would be nice if someone approved this PR. Even
after being merged, this is still a starting point which we can use to
refine the process itself over time.

Thanks to everyone who read or gave input.

-Brian

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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/20170316/f758bd2c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list