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 A68C0156C61 for ; Wed, 29 May 2024 16:14:48 +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=1716999290; cv=none; b=IwjlC0baSe3XD9od/EGaAxcopKe3XgBy8D9rrO7oxTeo1ph+I8B6f8oBSDSFOUZ1jNzJD5xd6JQKIeNfZ698qOu5BDAFD8txwJ7DyxYz0/PaidU1y5uPK5df4zySqh1R6wNKfxJKlMvL0ow1WElCW4tkwGvZ7f06UH1gzmFTRIM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716999290; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xniP+amsftIzp/HIzpNsN5sDFJGVSSdraS4l32kfQT0=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Z8oyJPSjNEwBgXKL86Rj3kU+kVkRwJlxhdUZLeJoqWFFRSAWn3UJVJXq6PBKZ6rPfwUyY8niC+mnOB7EbX7rncWK/ABTL3p67X9OTVR5oljAA9Gi6G3l//6V8oKLnFBSSog/DDbCb1ZuQNJXZD3XfZbdb950KvLI43OD5C8hogg= 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=QJwUOJSw; 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="QJwUOJSw" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1716999287; 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=eHX5MEUYy5W/+31dM37crjkUXavUNug4tMrjKkfLUok=; b=QJwUOJSw7IrwYaSsaUfA6fqKEiu3BcoUH5TkSGRnQ/veCpGnCKCVv5+TpAuuKwyL3dy+Yk 04l7xnQdrULux7gydzf13612on3Pi7cGKNWXKSicyImsEcUOWVBVE6+vCdf6n3bBBQrYOW yuDC8B6cE1afn3lPpNmqiWmuWNwlw/U= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-634-rawefdUEOYicDTfGUxnPMw-1; Wed, 29 May 2024 12:14:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: rawefdUEOYicDTfGUxnPMw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) (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 5CA0580028D; Wed, 29 May 2024 16:14:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dhcp-192-239.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.239]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D173C15BB1; Wed, 29 May 2024 16:14:44 +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> <87msoanjxx.fsf@redhat.com> <87jzjeni46.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.38.3 (https://notmuchmail.org) Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 18:14:42 +0200 Message-ID: <87zfs8mw7h.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 10.11.54.8 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 7:39 PM >> >> On Tue, May 28 2024, Parav Pandit wrote: >> >> >> From: Cornelia Huck >> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 7:00 PM >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 28 2024, Parav Pandit wrote: >> >> >> >> >> From: Cornelia Huck >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 6:21 PM >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> Let's go back to the rationale here: Chairs should be able to find out easily >> which issues they should open a vote on. This involves trusting that things >> have been found reasonable by people familiar with the topic. >> > Sure, however this solely is the request of the submitter to decide to ask for the vote. > If things are not acceptable, anyway vote wont progress. > >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> > You are trying to define two things in this one process. >> > a. define process >> > b. defining SMEs >> > >> > doing #b in this process does not look right to me. >> > I wouldn't call it SMEs given that what you wrote above that "no way for >> chairs to know each and every SME".. >> > It is hard for non_chair to judge a person as SME or not. Seems broken there. >> > Rather to keep things neutral and simple, why not just say, reviewed by or >> acked by person xyz? >> >> Again, it's not about "defining SME", I have no idea where you got this from. > Because you wrote the SMEs to write R-B or acked by. > >> I >> just want the submitter to say "please open a vote for this, >> $PERSON_WORKING_ON_VIRTIO and $PERSON who knows the backend are >> happy with it." Nothing complicated, just an indication that it is reasonable to >> open a ballot, trusting the submitter that they did any needed reviewing >> cycles, and trusting that the people who said that it looks good did their due >> diligence, and know what they are talking about. (Obviously, that's primarily >> for more complex changes that touch areas that not everyone is familiar with, >> a simple patch with an R-b does not need elaborate justifications; just use >> some judgement.) > > Right. No need to attribute a person as SME or anything else. > Person abc signed-off and person xyx reviewed/acked. > Each information is present in last patch_N. > Submitter to just copy paste that again in the new request vote email. > > TC already has voting committee to decide what to approve or not. > Virtio TC has consciously not added any formal or informal sub-committees from last year of any intermediate SMEs. > So, let's not complicate it now either. > > To your point, "Chairs should be able to find out easily which issues they should open a vote on" > > For any issue for which a diligent person has iterated the patches should have the right to ask for vote like today. > Virtio TC has the ability to evaluate it and vote. > > If we need to discuss this more, than, > > Defining "process to request a vote" seems like a committee work to happen on the OASIS-virtio@ConnectedCommunity.org mailing list. > Is virtio OASIS list still broken for you, hence discussion on this list? Well, see my lead-in on the initial mail -- yes, it is broken (and not just for me.) > > While defining the new things is good, a humble request is, lot of patches are currently in waiting stage for several weeks to months now. > Starting with Heng's v5... and many of my patches. > To be clear, we don't want to wait for the new process to slow down the snail further. > > The new steps you mentioned are good to start as long as it is not blocking patches already in the pipe. Again, see my lead-in on the initial mail. (If things don't move once we're good again, it's not intentional; just ping in that case.) I'm waiting for feedback from others as well.