d01ad06a8a
A while ago it was decided[0] that motions, before being merged/approved, should be discussed and voted on during the Technical Committee meetings. This worked well back in the days but it's not necessary anymore. This was carried over even though we now have an asynchronous voting system and it was never properly documented or re-evaluated. This patch documents how formal-vote patches are voted on and eventually approved. [0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-August/013339.html Change-Id: Ie84bacb9038d82bdfb518724a8e6fb726f5a0316
3.4 KiB
House rules for governance changes approval
While most of the governance changes follow the rules described in
the charter-motions-section section and call for a formal
discussion and vote by the Technical Committee membership, we also have
a number of exceptions to that general rule, in order to speed up the
processing of smaller changes. This document lists those "house rules"
for reference.
Typo fixes
When the change fixes content that is obviously wrong (updates a PTL email address, fixes a typo...) then the chair is allowed to directly approve them.
Code changes
The openstack/governance repository also contains code to build and publish pages on the governance.openstack.org website. For those we apply the normal code review rules (with RollCall votes being considered +-2): change will be approved once 2 RollCall+1 (other than the change owner) are posted (and no RollCall-1).
Delegated tags
Some tags are delegated to a specific team, like tag-stable:follows-policy or
tag-vulnerability:managed. Those need to get approved
by the corresponding team PTL, and can be directly approved by the chair
once this approval is given.
Other project team updates
For other changes within an existing project team, like addition of a new git repository or self-assertion of a tag, we use lazy consensus. If there is no objection posted one week after the change is proposed (or a significant new revision of the change is posted), then the change can be approved by the chair.
One exception to this would be significant team mission statement changes, which should be approved by a formal vote after an in-meeting discussion.
In corner cases where the change is time-sensitive (like a deliverable reorganization which blocks a release request), the chair may fast-track the change, but should report on that exception at the next TC meeting.
Goal Updates from PTLs
PTLs will acknowledge community-wide goals at the start of each cycle by providing links to artifacts for tracking the work, or an explanation of why work is not going to be done. They will also provide references to completion artifacts at the end of each cycle for goals where work was needed. These patches should be reviewed by TC members for completeness and clarity (is enough information provided for interested parties to track the work, or is the justification for not doing work clear enough).
The patches to add team acknowledgments, planning artifacts, and completion artifacts to the goal document do not need to go through the formal vote process, and so lazy consensus rules will be used. If there is no objection posted one week after the most recent version of a change is proposed, then the change can be approved by the chair.
If a TC member feels that one of these responses needs to be discussed by the entire TC, they should place it on the agenda for an upcoming meeting and the change should not be approved until after the discussion is completed.
Rolling back fast-tracked changes
As a safety net, if any member disagrees with any change that was fast-tracked under one of those house rules, that member can propose a revert of the change. Such revert should be directly approved by the chair and the change be put on the agenda of the next TC meeting for further discussion.