Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open Definition versioning: cleaner approval process, overall revisions #130

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: gh-pages
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Open Definition versioning: cleaner approval process, overall revisions #130

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e288388
cleaner approval process, overall revisions
wolftune Oct 9, 2015
3b2bd0b
substantial fixes, issues > concerns, clarity
wolftune Nov 6, 2015
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 8 additions & 6 deletions source/open-definition-revision-process-dev.markdown
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,19 +2,21 @@
Definition Revision Approval Process _- draft_
====================================

1. Issues with the current Open Definition are identified. The Open Definition community will disucss on the mailing list and decide which issues are to be dealt with in the next release reach consensus on each of these issues.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hayzlee13@

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This step just describes the process starts. People discuss issues on the mailing list and agree informally about what needs to happen.

1. Issues with the current Open Definition are identified. The Open Definition community will disucss on the mailing list or discuss.okfn.org forum and decide which issues are to be dealt with in the next release.

2. A new draft document is started. Chair notifies the list and other relevant fora that a new draft document has been started summarizing the issues that the upcoming release is to address and inviting participation.

3. Issues with the current Open Definition are identified. The Open Definition community will discuss on the mailing list and decide which issues are to be dealt with in the next release reach consensus on each of these issues. The draft document is updated to relfect current consensus.
3. Along with discussion, people submit pull requests to the draft until it seems to relfect current consensus.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note: this was a totally redundant item to item 1, like it was just a typo when someone moved it and forgot to delete the old lines or something.


4. The Open Definition Advisory Council chair will summarize the consensus to the Advisory Council on the mailing list and to other relevant fora, okfn-discuss at a minimum.
4. When no outstanding issues remain unsettled, the Open Definition Advisory Council chair will summarize the consensus to the Advisory Council on the mailing list and to other relevant fora, okfn-discuss at a minimum.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see how "When no outstanding issues remain unsettled" is practical. There are always going to be outstanding issues. I think someone needs to draw the line somewhere and say "this is in" and "everything else is for later", typically related to the intention of the release. I think it's up to the chair to draw that line and then it is up to others to protest before a vote is called if they want to object.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay, well, the intention I have is: When all outstanding concerns about this have been acknowledged and either dealt with or a decision made to put them off to a later time/version.


5. If over next two weeks issues are raised which indicate a different consensus or further discussion needed, chair will step process back to step 2 or 3 as appropriate. If no further issues are raised, the chair notifies the list and other relevant fora that the draft is ready for voting, establishing a release candidate, and informing contributors that only typo corrections will be accepted from this point forward.
5. If, over next two weeks, issues are raised which indicate a different consensus or further discussion needed, chair will step process back to step 2 or 3 as appropriate. If no further issues are raised, the chair holds a vote on the OD list to accept the current draft as a release candidate.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or, combine this with above and jump right to a vote for an RC even without the two-week delay. RC could simply mean "the council itself doesn't have any outstanding concerns, so this migtht be final depending on wider feedback.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we want to distinguish between "Issues" we're trying to address in the release, and "Issues" with the proposed changes... Here I think we might want to use a different word than "Issues" like maybe "concerns"... i.e. "If, over next two weeks, concerns are raised..." and "If not further concerns are raised,...". I would not want to accidentally encourage new "Issues" being raised this late in the process.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm fine with "concerns" instead of "issues"


6. If over next two weeks issues are raised which indicate the release candidate is not acceptable, chair will step process back to step 2. If no further issues are raised, the chair notifies the list and other relevant fora that a vote will occur within one week.
6. If a release candidate vote is successful, the chair will announce the release candidate to all relevant outlets including the general discussion lists and fora.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

similar: "issues" here could be "concerns"


7. Chair calls for formal approval of release candidate by Advisory Council on mailing list.
7. If, over the next two weeks, issues besides typo corrections are raised that warrant being addressed before finalizing this release of the definition, the chair will step process back to step 2. If no further issues are raised, the chair notifies the list and other relevant fora that a finalvote will occur within one week.

8. Chair calls for formal approval of release candidate by Advisory Council on mailing list.

8. If after two weeks at least three Advisory Council members approve the consensus summary on-list, and at least 75% of Advisory Council members expressing an opinion on the summary if any dissent, the website will be updated, and announcements made to public and wider lists as appropriate. Wider lists includes the [email protected] and [email protected] lists. If the motion does not pass the chair notifies the list and steps the process back to step 2.