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.

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

doc: rewrite consensus seeking in guide #23349

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented Oct 9, 2018

Rewrite the Consensus Seeking section of the Collaborators Guide for
easier reading, more clarity, shorter sentences, less passive voice,
etc.

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

Rewrite the Consensus Seeking section of the Collaborators Guide for
easier reading, more clarity, shorter sentences, less passive voice,
etc.
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. label Oct 9, 2018
@vsemozhetbyt vsemozhetbyt added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label Oct 9, 2018
Collaborators should not block pull requests without providing a reason. Other
Collaborators may ask objecting Collaborators questions about their objections.
If an objecting Collaborator is unresponsive, another Collaborator may dismiss
their objection.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Collaborators should not block a pull request without providing a reason.
Questions may be asked about why a collaborator objects. If the objector
is unresponsive, the objection may be dismissed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not for this PR, but: timeslot?

Copy link
Member

@ChALkeR ChALkeR Oct 10, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also, this new wording (in PR) could cause confusion.

Other Collaborators may ask objecting Collaborators questions about their objections.
If an objecting Collaborator is unresponsive, another Collaborator may dismiss their objection.

This could be read as if any objection could be dismissed after the objector becomes unresponsive, even if they feel that they answered all questions already.

The variant that @jasnell proposed is better, but I would prefer to keep the «Note that this does not apply to objections that are explained.» part.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The original text did have the loose within a reasonable period of time.

If an objecting Collaborator is unresponsive, another Collaborator may dismiss
their objection.

Note that [breaking changes](#breaking-changes) must receive
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

[Breaking](#breaking-changes) (`semver-major`) must receive
[TSC review](#involving-the-tsc). If two TSC members approve
the pull request and no Collaborators object, then it may land.
If there are objections, the TSC may be asked to give additional
consideration (by adding the `tsc-review` label), or the pull
request may be put on the TSC meeting agenda (by adding the
`tsc-agenda` label).

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Oct 11, 2018

Updated for nits. PTAL

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Oct 11, 2018

Copy link
Member

@fhinkel fhinkel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Oct 11, 2018

Landed in d4ce144

@Trott Trott closed this Oct 11, 2018
Trott added a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2018
Rewrite the Consensus Seeking section of the Collaborators Guide for
easier reading, more clarity, shorter sentences, less passive voice,
etc.

PR-URL: nodejs#23349
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <vsemozhetbyt@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2018
Rewrite the Consensus Seeking section of the Collaborators Guide for
easier reading, more clarity, shorter sentences, less passive voice,
etc.

PR-URL: #23349
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <vsemozhetbyt@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
jasnell pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2018
Rewrite the Consensus Seeking section of the Collaborators Guide for
easier reading, more clarity, shorter sentences, less passive voice,
etc.

PR-URL: #23349
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <vsemozhetbyt@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 30, 2018
Rewrite the Consensus Seeking section of the Collaborators Guide for
easier reading, more clarity, shorter sentences, less passive voice,
etc.

PR-URL: #23349
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <vsemozhetbyt@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
@codebytere codebytere mentioned this pull request Nov 27, 2018
rvagg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 28, 2018
Rewrite the Consensus Seeking section of the Collaborators Guide for
easier reading, more clarity, shorter sentences, less passive voice,
etc.

PR-URL: #23349
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <vsemozhetbyt@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 29, 2018
Rewrite the Consensus Seeking section of the Collaborators Guide for
easier reading, more clarity, shorter sentences, less passive voice,
etc.

PR-URL: #23349
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <vsemozhetbyt@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com>
@codebytere codebytere mentioned this pull request Nov 29, 2018
@Trott Trott deleted the consensus-seeking branch January 13, 2022 22:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants