-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.8k
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
meta: ctc-agenda
label is misused according to the Project Governance
#11325
Comments
I interpret Perhaps we should reword that passage to stick to those well-defined terms ( |
(As the author of #9072, I can certainly say that my intention was to discourage bypassing asynchronous processes, but not to forbid it.) |
Oh, I see now that one straightforward interpretation of what's written is that if Yeah, in practice, that's not what we do (although it would be great if we could try to do that most of the time). The text should probably be modified to reflect actual practice. I'd also add that |
I'm unclear on the difference here. I thought |
@gibfahn I was wrong to say that it is "not as described in the doc". The details were left out of the doc, probably by design. The In practice, it has become as you described. And furthermore, that seems consistent with the doc. (So my belly-aching about it is unjustified!) |
I think we're all good on this now. @ChALkeR Please re-open if you disagree. |
After #9072 landed in October, it (strictly speaking) removed the possiblity to bring things up to the CTC agenda without a prior failure though the consensus-seeking process.
Before:
After:
This (strictly speaking) blocks mentioning some issues on the
ctc-agenda
for other reasons, like making sure that more CTC members are aware of some change, like I tried to do in #11304 (comment) (I had to remove the label), or like bringing more attention to the issue and providing some information at the meeting to speed up thectc-review
process.More examples of issues/prs that should not have received the
ctc-agenda
label (at least at the time they were labeled) per the Project Governance: #10599 #10155 #10187 #10116 #10792 #10505 (hover to get a description). There may be more.Yes, I'm being boring, but I think that such written rules might stop other members from bringing things up to the
ctc-agenda
and that we should follow our own rules.The easy way would be to patch the GOVERNANCE.md document, allowing bringing up issues to the CTC meeting agenda without a previous failure of a consensus-seeking process. If that is not something we want, we should better follow the process and escalate to the agenda only the issues that failed the conensus-seeking process, but I believe that will slow things down at some places without significant benefits.
/cc @nodejs/ctc
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: