Re: INFORMAL VOTE REQUIRED - DOCUMENTATION WORDING

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023, George Dunlap wrote:
> And how do we give people practical options to respond to a maintainer
> who they think is being "picky"

If a maintainer is too picky the contributor and the other maintainers
should say that the patch is good enough in their view. If the
maintainers disagree (on that topic or another) the new informal voting
rule should help us move forward faster.

The informal voting would have helped us move forward faster in the
original thread.


On Mon, 4 Dec 2023, George Dunlap wrote:
> the chance of a vote of the committers being out of sync with the
> community is fairly small. But of course, small is not impossible.
> [...] Hence the community-wide survey.

Yes. If someone cares about the outcome, and they are not happy with the
informal vote, then they need to call for a formal vote.

But maintainers/committers might not always be the right people to
escalate the voting to.

Yes committers' opinions should count, but certain things have more to
do with our users and the way they understand our documentation than
implementation correctness. For these things, our users' opinions should
count as much as ours.

So I can see that in those cases, if someone is not happy with the
informal vote, the best next step would be a community-wide survey like
Kelly did here. That's a good idea. 

I don't think that's written anywhere in our governance specifically,
but I think it would be a good addition.