From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (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 92B8C16E89E for ; Tue, 28 May 2024 13:29:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716902993; cv=none; b=LZ6QUlA2PfTrgzaC0eUiBmyUpgzbCKoiVk2FJtgy2I4KVI2sZuUoswRxuUiINTKelqZpAV+QVj6ryxppAmYg/L3bSCw/nuH3RZDGQzjMaMPoQyV3J4nTOXI9YSEdITeJ7Y12sTGh3mhBXEMT4k1cZLonQBsTGiH35dilPV+zCw4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716902993; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fomsutELISf4JOabRS3xDo2fQqA3hPcSVW1h0BgvZAg=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=LiUZZADTjD3h2ZF0cfTS3Py5uHfqfXnR7a1JBGkNbGbkZgUUFJ+1QajY7QfYIETWohk41fRvwglVeT4ygtaR/fjx34AvCbgOMZgmDaKGU9m0KQ1/fz/mIqtN8TQDZyUMtM5P1f+UKbc6Y9jIw7GKxtbwUeQaul3ISr5AcFjqg4k= 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=FbkB9Gjq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 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="FbkB9Gjq" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1716902990; 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=mUxrOxCr01p4ib5PKG4wISKVObJ430lPBPzga3xnAA8=; b=FbkB9GjqZyo/FdjGKUjJWiqVNo8FD2JluibxQYGGFV784lmQCLUsxYSTfbF+tp2j49h2lS 3gOjIs0QeNfcia1+/CFq8mxKPgf5L4LQet4VZY2jpNBEJSoSSHqnR2bTqctCZW2ZPzq4bi 05BxyfxsKwY/+FTJASJ7G/p4zJ+ha3k= 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-486-fGRX3ImNOIaBCKK-PKdDMA-1; Tue, 28 May 2024 09:29:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: fGRX3ImNOIaBCKK-PKdDMA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (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 15A7E1C0512D; Tue, 28 May 2024 13:29:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dhcp-192-239.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.239]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3850492BC6; Tue, 28 May 2024 13:29:47 +0000 (UTC) From: Cornelia Huck To: Parav Pandit , 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: Tue, 28 May 2024 15:29:46 +0200 Message-ID: <87msoanjxx.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 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain On Tue, May 28 2024, Parav Pandit wrote: >> From: Cornelia Huck >> 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.