From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 351BA156672 for ; Fri, 31 May 2024 11:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717153442; cv=none; b=MyiboVUJXBnpJN2o9D64h9GDrqupdkYF5J7SbB96cZ0QjSMnfsfw6lNNLiiJUFS4d+QoFryEBwWzKwFtGTvugRzDGQCEVqFh8HdNILNZqj6gZSH5KS83KCKFQyO1raeY2aA5qjfQkxFlkbNubm71EREDEaT1c3AdxobJE4uLJpw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717153442; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YTVDVolCyVCIecxWlVhh79NKhqXwpwqE8WjiAWvw8cY=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ALJXpFVtPOs8a/Db/AKMFa6B4Rkr7NToLVDvgdIQ9BMhJCsunFnyISniOTTHNUi7c+APTk91umPlafdCo0rEbsCZ90BrTH8ay9zTZVelNgh6+kbH9F4fSebFOh/zlQ+PBZfBMFN8ctnq7Wt/0NqQSIxsiBHi+KS5QZUuQtuQ+KI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=QX0X7S6Y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="QX0X7S6Y" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1717153439; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7zaavmF/kfP6q+faldz/skQm4yel9qDrbqhH64S+qZI=; b=QX0X7S6YxhcqUw06w8IdO02wy11FBK79jVz/GH6H1FQZZNtRXMvQ7cpbCCJaA7iikFOF3n ywQMJPMU2v7/e+60cAGS3L9x0AupiI5FJxXROd12v8OozGU/y57MK7qQmutjxxh6RNZEaJ LFJyLX+cIXQ2vkzHSFG+GaJW/XXPZ4k= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-651-wDo6f4itNu6QgRcoix_Lmg-1; Fri, 31 May 2024 07:03:57 -0400 X-MC-Unique: wDo6f4itNu6QgRcoix_Lmg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C289A29AA381; Fri, 31 May 2024 11:03:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dhcp-192-239.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.239]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 897463C27; Fri, 31 May 2024 11:03:56 +0000 (UTC) From: Cornelia Huck To: Alexander Gordeev , virtio-comment Subject: Re: [RFC] Process to request a vote for an issue In-Reply-To: Organization: "Red Hat GmbH, Sitz: Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 12, D-85630 Grasbrunn, Handelsregister: Amtsgericht =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=BCnchen=2C?= HRB 153243, =?utf-8?Q?Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer=3A?= Ryan Barnhart, Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Amy Ross" References: <87plt6nlq4.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.38.3 (https://notmuchmail.org) Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 13:03:55 +0200 Message-ID: <87ikyumeec.fsf@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: virtio-comment@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain On Fri, May 31 2024, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > Hi Cornelia, > > On 28.05.24 14:51, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> [first of all: there are still issues with our usage of the platform...] >> >> [Also, first discussing this on virtio-comment, as this is (a) where >> people who want to submit changes usually are subscribed, and (b) an >> actually working list, unlike the list for the TC...] >> >> The current process to include an update in the spec is something like >> the following: >> - open a github issue >> - post a patch on the list, link it from the issue >> - iterate through some review cycles >> - ask for a vote, so that the Chairs will open a ballot >> >> The last step currently mostly happens in the thread for the latest >> revision; such an email is easily missed if you're not actively >> following the discussion. IMHO it isn't a very reasonable expectation >> for the chairs to follow each and every discussion in detail; at some >> point, it is much more reasonable to expect trusted reviewers and SMEs >> to reach a consensus. >> >> Therefore, I propose that >> - request for votes be posted in a new, separate thread, referring to >> the version proposed for inclusion and ideally containing a note on >> who deems this proposal ready for inclusion, >> - and those requests be clearly marked in the subject, for example with >> a "[Request for vote]" prefix that can be easily filtered for. >> >> Thoughts, comments? > > Could you please specify who an SME is? Does this stand for the Society > of Manufacturing Engineers (sme.org)? > I tried to search the virtio-comment and virtio-dev archives, but > couldn't find anything relevant: > https://lore.kernel.org/virtio-comment/?q=SME > https://lore.kernel.org/virtio-dev/?q=SME > Also not in the spec repository. SME == Subject Matter Expert I was simply trying to describe the reality: we have people familiar with virtio and the spec, and we have people familiar with with technologies, and in the ideal case, we'd have both agree on a change (can obviously be one person, if they're familiar with both :) /me thinks she should never have brought that up and thought that was a very common TLA :(