RE: [RFC] Process to request a vote for an issue

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Tue, May 28 2024, Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote:

>> From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 6:21 PM
>> 
>> [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 
> This looks good.
>
>> ideally containing a note on
>>   who deems this proposal ready for inclusion,
> This additional overhead does not seem necessary because when you pull the patches using b4 tool.
> It automatically captures who has reviewed, acked those patches like any other email based flow.

I disagree: This only captures people giving their R-b or A-b; not
e.g. a SME saying "the hardware modeling looks good to me". A R-b from a
trusted virtio reviewer is obviously a good indication that this is fine
from a virtio perspective, but there's no way for Chairs to know each
and every SME and judging how valuable the R-b or A-b of a person they
do not know is. Just spell it out; "SME xyz says it looks good" is a
reasonable statement to indicate readiness for a vote.

>
>> - and those requests be clearly marked in the subject, for example with
>>   a "[Request for vote]" prefix that can be easily filtered for.
>> 
> This flow described here got to be present on the README.md and if possible at [1] too.
>
> With reworking the section [2] and [3] to write above text.

Well, after we have agreed on something.