From 650e92463b2a3e560d85ff0da81bd4e5129a0eee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:53:41 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] doc: rewrite consensus seeking in guide Rewrite the Consensus Seeking section of the Collaborators Guide for easier reading, more clarity, shorter sentences, less passive voice, etc. PR-URL: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/23349 Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Vse Mozhet Byt <vsemozhetbyt@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <trivikr.dev@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <franziska.hinkelmann@gmail.com> --- COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md b/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md index 7a435c6478bf45..e46d0e08b0ccf9 100644 --- a/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md +++ b/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md @@ -139,30 +139,26 @@ the CI outcome. ### Consensus Seeking -If there is no disagreement amongst Collaborators, a pull request should be -landed given appropriate review, a green CI, and the minimum -[waiting time](#waiting-for-approvals) for a PR. If it is still awaiting the -[minimum time to land](#waiting-for-approvals), please add the `author ready` -label to it so it is obvious that the PR can land as soon as the time ends. - -Where there is discussion amongst Collaborators, consensus should be sought if -possible. The lack of consensus may indicate the need to elevate discussion to -the TSC for resolution. - -If any Collaborator objects to a change *without giving any additional -explanation or context*, and the objecting Collaborator fails to respond to -explicit requests for explanation or context within a reasonable period of -time, the objection may be dismissed. Note that this does not apply to -objections that are explained. - -Note that breaking changes (that is, pull requests that require an increase in -the major version number, known as `semver-major` changes) must be [elevated for -review by the TSC](#involving-the-tsc). This does not necessarily mean that the -PR must be put onto the TSC meeting agenda. If multiple TSC members approve -(`LGTM`) the PR and no Collaborators oppose the PR, it should be landed. Where -there is disagreement among TSC members or objections from one or more -Collaborators, `semver-major` pull requests may be put on the TSC meeting -agenda. +If there are no objecting Collaborators, a pull request may land if it has the +needed [approvals](#code-reviews), [CI](#testing-and-ci), and +[wait time](#waiting-for-approvals). If a pull request meets all requirements +except the [wait time](#waiting-for-approvals), please add the +[`author ready`](#author-ready-pull-requests) label. + +Where there is disagreement among Collaborators, consensus should be sought if +possible. If reaching consensus is not possible, a Collaborator may escalate the +issue to the TSC. + +Collaborators should not block a pull request without providing a reason. +Another Collaborator may ask an objecting Collaborator to explain their +objection. If the objector is unresponsive, another Collaborator may dismiss the +objection. + +[Breaking changes](#breaking-changes) must receive +[TSC review](#involving-the-tsc). If two TSC members approve the pull request +and no Collaborators object, then it may land. If there are objections, a +Collaborator may apply the `tsc-agenda` label. That will put the pull request on +the TSC meeting agenda. #### Helpful resources