From: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: gitster@pobox.com, karthik.188@gmail.com, me@ttaylorr.com,
ps@pks.im, emrass@google.com, nasamuffin@google.com
Subject: [PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 14:20:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5446ca49e042b104923ac2004d845a5f9018c9d9.1715894135.git.steadmon@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b2ef74c1b0c7482fa880a1519fd6ea1032df7789.1713222673.git.steadmon@google.com>
The Git project currently operates according to an informal
consensus-building process, which is currently described in the
SubmittingPatches document. However, that focuses on small/medium-scale
patch series. For larger-scale decisions, the process is not as well
described. Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to
help inform newcomers to the project.
This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to
decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to
describe how the project currently operates today.
Co-authored-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
---
doc: describe the project's decision-making process
Changes in V3:
* Squash in Junio's suggested patch to remove discussion of small-scale
patch series.
Changes in V2:
* Split doc to treat patch series discussion as the general case, with
larger discussions (with or without patches) as special situations.
* Add links to example discussions for certain situations
* Add link to contributor summit notes
* Add link to Code of Conduct doc
* Add justification for keeping discussion on-list
* Add paragraph about explicit negative consensus
* Minor reword of advice on when to CC experts
* MInor reword of doc intro to avoid indecisive text
Range-diff against v2:
1: 4a829792bf ! 1: 5446ca49e0 doc: describe the project's decision-making process
@@ Commit message
doc: describe the project's decision-making process
The Git project currently operates according to an informal
- consensus-building process, which is not currently well-described.
- Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to help
- inform newcomers to the project.
+ consensus-building process, which is currently described in the
+ SubmittingPatches document. However, that focuses on small/medium-scale
+ patch series. For larger-scale decisions, the process is not as well
+ described. Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to
+ help inform newcomers to the project.
This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to
decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to
describe how the project currently operates today.
+ Co-authored-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
## Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new) ##
@@
@@ Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new)
+
+Introduction
+------------
-+This doc aims to describe the current decision-making process in the Git
++This document describes the current decision-making process in the Git
+project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
+describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
+particular process or changes to the current process.
+
-+Here we document how the project makes decisions for general patch series, and
-+for larger-scale discussions (with or without patches).
-+
-+
-+General Patch Series
-+--------------------
-+
-+Starting a Discussion
-+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-+For most changes, discussions are started by sending a patch series to the list.
-+There is rarely any need to discuss or ask for approval prior to sending
-+patches; the merit of both the general idea behind your change and the code to
-+implement it will be discussed at the same time.
-+
-+NOTE: For general guides on creating and sending a patch series to the list, see
-+link:SubmittingPatches.html[SubmittingPatches] and
-+link:MyFirstContribution.html[MyFirstContribution]. The remainder of this
-+doc will focus more on what to expect from the list discussion.
-+
-+Because members of the Git community have a wide variety of experience,
-+backgrounds, and values, series are expected to include as much context as
-+possible.
-+
-+If the proposer is aware of individuals with an interest in the subject of the
-+change, it is helpful to CC them on the proposal to increase the likelihood of
-+receiving constructive feedback.
-+
-+Engaging in Discussion
-+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-+Once a proposal has been made, the community will discuss it on-list. While the
-+maintainer will often participate in discussions, it is not the maintainer's
-+responsibility to guide discussion; the proposer and any other interested
-+parties are expected to stay engaged in the discussion and ensure progress is
-+made.
-+
-+Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is
-+expected that all discussion will adhere to the link:../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md[Code
-+of Conduct] rules.
-+
-+Finalizing a Decision
-+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-+If the maintainer judges that positive consensus has been reached on a topic,
-+they will merge the series, usually to the 'next' integration branch. After a
-+suitable period of time for testing by the community, changes are merged from
-+'next' into 'master', from which official releases are tagged.
-+
-+If consensus has not been reached, discussion may continue, or the proposal may
-+be abandoned if no one continues discussion. More rarely, explicit negative
-+consensus may be reached if the community feels that the series is not suitable,
-+in which case the series should be dropped and discussion ended.
-+
-+There are no strict guidelines used to judge when consensus has been reached,
-+but generally we expect all points of feedback to have been addressed with
-+either a fix or an explanation on why no change is necessary.
++Here we document how the project makes decisions for discussions
++(with or without patches), in scale larger than an individual patch
++series (which is fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document).
+
+
+Larger Discussions (with patches)
+---------------------------------
-+As with discussions on a general patch series, starting a larger-scale
++As with discussions on an individual patch series, starting a larger-scale
+discussion often begins by sending a patch or series to the list. This might
+take the form of an initial design doc, with implementation following in later
+iterations of the series (for example,
-+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding
-+unit tests] or
-+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based
-+hooks]), or it might include a full implementation from the beginning. In either
-+case, discussion progresses as described above until consensus is reached or the
-+topic is dropped.
++link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding unit tests] or
++link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based hooks]),
++or it might include a full implementation from the beginning.
++In either case, discussion progresses the same way for an individual patch series,
++until consensus is reached or the topic is dropped.
+
+
+Larger Discussions (without patches)
@@ Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new)
+even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended,
+policy-oriented discussions (examples:
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust]
-+or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving
-+submodule UX]). In either case, discussion progresses as described above for
-+general patch series.
++or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving submodule UX]).
++In either case, discussion progresses as described above for general patch series.
+
+For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
+it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
@@ Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new)
+restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
+that can be more easily debated.
+
-+If consensus around a decision has been reached but no implementation provided,
-+it is not the maintainer's responsibility to implement any particular decision.
++When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
++proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,
++with help from others who were involved in the discussion, as
++needed.
++
+For decisions that require code changes, it is often the case that the original
+proposer will follow up with a patch series, although it is also common for
+other interested parties to provide an implementation (or parts of the
@@ Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new)
+
+For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
+the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.
++The project leadership committe (PLC) may help the implementation of
++policy decisions.
+
+
+Other Discussion Venues
Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Documentation/Makefile | 1 +
2 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..274ddfa62c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+Decision-Making Process in the Git Project
+==========================================
+
+Introduction
+------------
+This document describes the current decision-making process in the Git
+project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
+describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
+particular process or changes to the current process.
+
+Here we document how the project makes decisions for discussions
+(with or without patches), in scale larger than an individual patch
+series (which is fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document).
+
+
+Larger Discussions (with patches)
+---------------------------------
+As with discussions on an individual patch series, starting a larger-scale
+discussion often begins by sending a patch or series to the list. This might
+take the form of an initial design doc, with implementation following in later
+iterations of the series (for example,
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding unit tests] or
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based hooks]),
+or it might include a full implementation from the beginning.
+In either case, discussion progresses the same way for an individual patch series,
+until consensus is reached or the topic is dropped.
+
+
+Larger Discussions (without patches)
+------------------------------------
+Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
+These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
+even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended,
+policy-oriented discussions (examples:
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust]
+or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving submodule UX]).
+In either case, discussion progresses as described above for general patch series.
+
+For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
+it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
+official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
+restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
+that can be more easily debated.
+
+When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
+proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,
+with help from others who were involved in the discussion, as
+needed.
+
+For decisions that require code changes, it is often the case that the original
+proposer will follow up with a patch series, although it is also common for
+other interested parties to provide an implementation (or parts of the
+implementation, for very large changes).
+
+For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
+the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.
+The project leadership committe (PLC) may help the implementation of
+policy decisions.
+
+
+Other Discussion Venues
+-----------------------
+Occasionally decision proposals are presented off-list, e.g. at the semi-regular
+Contributors' Summit. While higher-bandwidth face-to-face discussion is often
+useful for quickly reaching consensus among attendees, generally we expect to
+summarize the discussion in notes that can later be presented on-list. For an
+example, see the thread
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/AC2EB721-2979-43FD-922D-C5076A57F24B@jramsay.com.au/[Notes
+from Git Contributor Summit, Los Angeles (April 5, 2020)] by James Ramsay.
+
+We prefer that "official" discussion happens on the list so that the full
+community has opportunity to engage in discussion. This also means that the
+mailing list archives contain a more-or-less complete history of project
+discussions and decisions.
diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
index 3f2383a12c..a04da672c6 100644
--- a/Documentation/Makefile
+++ b/Documentation/Makefile
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases
API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt)))
SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS)
+TECH_DOCS += DecisionMaking
TECH_DOCS += ReviewingGuidelines
TECH_DOCS += MyFirstContribution
TECH_DOCS += MyFirstObjectWalk
base-commit: 436d4e5b14df49870a897f64fe92c0ddc7017e4c
--
2.45.0.rc1.225.g2a3ae87e7f-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-16 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-15 23:20 [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process Josh Steadmon
2024-04-16 0:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-22 21:10 ` Josh Steadmon
2024-04-22 21:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-23 22:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-17 16:32 ` Enrico Mrass
2024-04-17 16:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-03 14:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-03 15:48 ` Josh Steadmon
2024-05-03 18:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-03 19:29 ` Taylor Blau
2024-05-06 7:12 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-05-06 20:14 ` Taylor Blau
2024-05-06 19:36 ` Josh Steadmon
2024-05-06 20:17 ` Taylor Blau
2024-04-22 18:41 ` Emily Shaffer
2024-04-22 19:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-22 21:12 ` Emily Shaffer
2024-04-23 1:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-09 0:01 ` [PATCH v2] " Josh Steadmon
2024-05-09 18:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-09 19:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-09 21:13 ` [PATCH 0/2] Describe patch-flow better in SubmittingPatches Junio C Hamano
2024-05-09 21:13 ` [PATCH 1/2] SubmittingPatches: move the patch-flow section earlier Junio C Hamano
2024-05-09 21:13 ` [PATCH 2/2] SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section Junio C Hamano
2024-05-10 10:08 ` Karthik Nayak
2024-05-10 15:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-10 19:09 ` Karthik Nayak
2024-05-10 16:55 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Describe life cycle of a patch series Junio C Hamano
2024-05-10 16:55 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] SubmittingPatches: move the patch-flow section earlier Junio C Hamano
2024-05-10 16:55 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section Junio C Hamano
2024-05-10 16:56 ` [PATCH] decisions: focus on larger scale issues Junio C Hamano
2024-05-15 20:36 ` Josh Steadmon
2024-05-15 20:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-15 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Describe life cycle of a patch series Josh Steadmon
2024-05-16 21:20 ` Josh Steadmon [this message]
2024-05-16 22:01 ` [PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process Junio C Hamano
2024-05-17 20:18 ` Josh Steadmon
2024-05-17 6:29 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-05-17 16:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-21 5:56 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-05-17 20:35 ` [PATCH v4] " Josh Steadmon
2024-05-17 22:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-05-21 5:58 ` Patrick Steinhardt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5446ca49e042b104923ac2004d845a5f9018c9d9.1715894135.git.steadmon@google.com \
--to=steadmon@google.com \
--cc=emrass@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=karthik.188@gmail.com \
--cc=me@ttaylorr.com \
--cc=nasamuffin@google.com \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).