amend merge criteria #187
amend merge criteria #187
Conversation
README.md
Outdated
| @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ please ping the Oversight Committee for help. | |||
| out from maintainers of relevant components. The broader the scope or more | |||
| controversial the change, the more broad the consensus should be required for | |||
| merging. The final approval and merge (or action, e.g. deleting a repo) | |||
| falls to a member of the Oversight Committee. This final review is to ensure that | |||
| falls to a member of the Oversight Committee, 2 Maintainers of any InstructLab Organization repository, or any 2 Organization owners. This final review is to ensure that | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be nice to keep wrapping consistent...
README.md
Outdated
| @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ please ping the Oversight Committee for help. | |||
| out from maintainers of relevant components. The broader the scope or more | |||
| controversial the change, the more broad the consensus should be required for | |||
| merging. The final approval and merge (or action, e.g. deleting a repo) | |||
| falls to a member of the Oversight Committee. This final review is to ensure that | |||
| falls to a member of the Oversight Committee, 2 Maintainers of any InstructLab Organization repository, or any 2 Organization owners. This final review is to ensure that | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My hope is we won't use Org Owners very much in the future, and we can stick to positions with more power in the org being more democractic - that being said, I'd prefer the following text
| falls to a member of the Oversight Committee, 2 Maintainers of any InstructLab Organization repository, or any 2 Organization owners. This final review is to ensure that | |
| falls to either **one** member of the Oversight Committee or **three** Maintainers of any InstructLab Organization repository. This final review is to ensure that |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As written, it sounds like it requires three people who are all maintainers of the same InstructLab Organization repository. However, I think it would be better if it were any three people each of whom are a maintainer of at least one InstructLab Organization repository. Maybe a concise way to write that would be "three InstructLab repository maintainers"?
|
made some amendments @danmcp @nathan-weinberg lmk if they fit both of the criteria you wanted |
|
I have reviewed the comment history and am in agreement with @danmcp current requested changes. Please make these updates and, once they are done, I will ensure the rest of the oversight committee reviews. In order to ensure that we are not blocked on a busy oversight committee - the very reason we need to make this particular change - I am going to timebox review to 5 days from time of updates addressing @danmcp's comments above. Thank you @cdoern for your diligence in making this proposal, @nathan-weinberg for your review and excellent suggestions to improve the PR, and @booxter for your feedback. |
the rule that the Oversight Committee needs to merge every dev-doc PR has not scaled with the project. We now write dev-docs for most design changes for any instructlab repo. This rule has also not regularly been followed. Amend this rule such that 2 maintainers of any instructlab can approve a PR and a third maintainer of any instructlab repo can verify that sufficient reviews have been given and merge a PR Signed-off-by: Charlie Doern <[email protected]>
the rule that the Oversight Committee needs to merge every dev-doc PR has not scaled with the project. We now write dev-docs for most design changes for any instructlab repo. This rule has also not regularly been followed. Amend this rule such that 2 maintainers of any instructlab can approve a PR and a third maintainer of any instructlab repo can verify that sufficient reviews have been given and merge a PR