Re: Community Process Group - Proposal

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am only addressing a couple of Jan's points below.


On Mon, 22 Jan 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > A CPG will be your second point of call, where you can escalate matters
> > quickly for a democratic solution.
> 
> Between informal voting and this "second point of call", where does
> formal voting go?

Formal voting is still available as "third point of call" after informal
voting and CPG.


> > *How are members selected?*
> > The CPG will be composed of 5 randomly selected members in total.
> > An odd number has been purposely selected to avoid an impasse during
> > decisions.
> > 
> > The criteria:
> > Individual members must be active contributors and are willing to help the
> > community succeed. As such they must be a part of the following groups:
> > 
> >    - Committers
> >    - Active Maintainers: maintainers with >= 20 reviews in the last 2
> >    releases
> >    - Active Contributors: contributors with >= 10 commits in the last 2
> >    releases
> 
> I'm afraid I can't leave this uncommented, as matching a common pattern
> I'm generally unhappy with. Whatever the numbers you select in such
> criteria, they'll open up an easy road for faking. At the same time it
> of course is difficult to come up with any non-numeric or not-only-
> numeric criteria. For example, I'd be heavily inclined to ask that
> "non-trivial" be added to both of the numbers. Yet then there arises a
> judgement issue: What's non-trivial can be entirely different
> depending on who you ask.

I share your observations and thoughts on the matter. I understand and
share your thinking about adding "non-trivial" but then it is becomes a
judgment call, as you wrote. I think it would be best if the criteria
doesn't require human judgment.


> What definitely needs clarifying is what "review" is: Are R-b tags
> counted, or is it the number of replies sent commenting on patches?

Yes, I think this needs to be clarified. I would say Reviewed-by tags.