[RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Josh Steadmon]

The Git project currently operates according to informal, unstated norms
when it comes to making bigger-picture decisions (above and beyond
individual patches and patch series). Document these norms so that
newcomers to the project can learn what to expect.

This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to
decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to
describe how the project currently operates today.

Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
---
This doc represents my impression of how the community operates. I have
obviously not been around as long as many other community members, so I
would welcome feedback if you feel that this misses or misrepresents any
aspect of how we make decisions.

One particular blind spot for me is how the Project Leadership Committee
operates, or if that's even relevant to this doc.

Unfortunately, I will be away from the list for a few days for $LIFE
reasons, but I will try to address feedback promptly once I get back.

 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/Makefile           |  1 +
 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..80fc732551
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+Decision-Making Process in the Git Project
+==========================================
+
+Introduction
+------------
+This doc aims to describe the current decision-making process in the Git
+project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
+describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
+particular process or changes to the current process.
+
+We want to describe how the project makes larger-scale decisions. We won't be
+discussing how decisions are made for individual patches or patch series,
+although the process is similar at a high level.
+
+Starting a Discussion
+---------------------
+Proposals are made on the mailing list. Because members of the Git community
+have a wide variety of experience, backgrounds, and values, proposals are
+expected to include as much context as possible.
+
+If the proposer is aware of individuals with an interest in the topic being
+discussed, it is polite to CC them on the proposal to make sure they are aware
+of the discussion.
+
+Engaging in Discussion
+----------------------
+Once a proposal has been made, the community will discuss it on-list. While the
+maintainer will often participate in discussions, it is not the maintainer's
+responsibility to guide discussion; the proposer and any other interested
+parties are expected to stay engaged in the discussion and ensure progress is
+made.
+
+Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is
+expected that all discussion will adhere to the Code of Conduct rules.
+
+Other Discussion Venues
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Occasionally decision proposals are presented off-list, e.g. at the semi-regular
+Contributors' Summit. While higher-bandwidth face-to-face discussion is often
+useful for quickly reaching consensus among attendees, generally we expect to
+summarize the discussion in notes that can later be presented on-list, so that
+the full community has opportunity to engage in discussion.
+
+Finalizing a Decision
+---------------------
+After a suitable period of time has passed, the maintainer will judge whether or
+not consensus has been reached. If so, the consensus decision will be
+implemented. Otherwise, discussion may continue, or the proposal may be
+abandoned.
+
+In general, it is not the maintainer's responsibility to implement any
+particular decision. For decisions that require code changes, it is often the
+case that the original proposer will make the necessary changes to implement the
+decision, although it is also common for other interested parties to provide an
+implementation.
+
+For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
+the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.
diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
index 3f2383a12c..a04da672c6 100644
--- a/Documentation/Makefile
+++ b/Documentation/Makefile
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases
 API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt)))
 SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS)
 
+TECH_DOCS += DecisionMaking
 TECH_DOCS += ReviewingGuidelines
 TECH_DOCS += MyFirstContribution
 TECH_DOCS += MyFirstObjectWalk

base-commit: 436d4e5b14df49870a897f64fe92c0ddc7017e4c
-- 
2.44.0.683.g7961c838ac-goog

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

> The Git project currently operates according to informal, unstated norms
> when it comes to making bigger-picture decisions (above and beyond
> individual patches and patch series). Document these norms so that
> newcomers to the project can learn what to expect.

It would be a good idea to write things down to help newcomers, but
the thing is, that we do not do that kind of design discussion +
design review + implementaiton waterfall here very often (a notable
exception was the sha256 transition design).  I am afraid that
"according to informal unstated norms" is an overstatement.  We do
not have any "process" concrete, nothing more than concensus
building among amicable parties.

Most of the time, technical decisions are made on individual series
and by the time the consensus is reached on the series that it is
good, the implementation should be finished, and there is no
separate "implementation" step.  Newcomers would probably want to
become familiar with that part of the decision process before
joining the "big picture" discussion, I suspect.

> One particular blind spot for me is how the Project Leadership Committee
> operates, or if that's even relevant to this doc.

I think this is the part PLC@SFC is supposed to be of relevance:

> +For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
> +the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.

> +Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is
> +expected that all discussion will adhere to the Code of Conduct rules.

It is very much worth mentioning CoC here.

> diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
> index 3f2383a12c..a04da672c6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/Makefile
> +++ b/Documentation/Makefile
> @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases
>  API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt)))
>  SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS)
>  
> +TECH_DOCS += DecisionMaking
>  TECH_DOCS += ReviewingGuidelines
>  TECH_DOCS += MyFirstContribution
>  TECH_DOCS += MyFirstObjectWalk
>
> base-commit: 436d4e5b14df49870a897f64fe92c0ddc7017e4c

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Enrico Mrass]

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

> Document these norms so that newcomers to the project can learn what to
> expect.

As a newcomer (first reply to the list), I highly appreciate the effort. Thank you!

> +After a suitable period of time has passed, the maintainer will judge whether or
> +not consensus has been reached. If so, the consensus decision will be
> +implemented. Otherwise, discussion may continue, or the proposal may be
> +abandoned.

I'd be curious to learn about norms or practices applied when no consensus
could be reached. It seems worth elaborating on that as part of documenting the
decision-making process.

> making bigger-picture decisions (above and beyond individual patches and
> patch series)

I understand how bigger-picture decisions (complex, larger scale architectural
decisions, often involving multiple components, likely requiring a design
discussion / review) are different from individual patches. However, nothing
in the current description strikes me as specific to these larger-scale
decisions. Are there norms / practices that specifically address challenges
around large-scale changes that are worth documenting here, like encouraging
a design for discussion in the first place?

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Enrico Mrass <emrass@google.com> writes:

> I'd be curious to learn about norms or practices applied when no consensus
> could be reached. It seems worth elaborating on that as part of documenting the
> decision-making process.

I may be forgetting things, but I do not know if there is a concrete
"here is a norm that we have been using to reach a consensus, not
just written down but it has been there" in the first place, let
alone "here is what we do to resolve an irreconcilable differences".

"We discuss and try to reach a consensus in an amicable way,
sticking to CoC, etc." has mostly been good enough for our happy
family, perhaps?

> ... However, nothing
> in the current description strikes me as specific to these larger-scale
> decisions.

I agree with that.

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Emily Shaffer]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> wrote:
>
> The Git project currently operates according to informal, unstated norms
> when it comes to making bigger-picture decisions (above and beyond
> individual patches and patch series). Document these norms so that
> newcomers to the project can learn what to expect.
>
> This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to
> decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to
> describe how the project currently operates today.

Thanks for writing this. I, for one, would love to see the process
evolve a little to account for the scale of work coming through the
list on any given day. However, that's a discussion that will be
easier to have once we have the status quo written and checked in.

Last week I attended Open Source Summit North America, and one
recurring theme I heard at many of the talks about project governance
and scalability was that every type of governance comes with cost
attached; one of the costs of a model as informal as ours is that it
takes time to explain over and over how we make decisions, as long as
it's not documented. I actually see this quite often, when we have
someone write in to the list or the Discord asking for permission to
implement a feature, or whether a given change would be welcome.

So, if nobody disagrees with the content of this document, I think we
should absolutely merge it. It will be great for newbies to see what
they're getting into, and for me to send to my boss to explain why my
predictions for my team's patches landing are so broad.

>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>

See review below. I had a few small nits, but with or without those
changes, it looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@google.com>

> ---
> This doc represents my impression of how the community operates. I have
> obviously not been around as long as many other community members, so I
> would welcome feedback if you feel that this misses or misrepresents any
> aspect of how we make decisions.
>
> One particular blind spot for me is how the Project Leadership Committee
> operates, or if that's even relevant to this doc.
>
> Unfortunately, I will be away from the list for a few days for $LIFE
> reasons, but I will try to address feedback promptly once I get back.
>
>  Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  Documentation/Makefile           |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..80fc732551
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> +Decision-Making Process in the Git Project
> +==========================================
> +
> +Introduction
> +------------
> +This doc aims to describe the current decision-making process in the Git
> +project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
> +describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
> +particular process or changes to the current process.
> +
> +We want to describe how the project makes larger-scale decisions. We won't be
> +discussing how decisions are made for individual patches or patch series,
> +although the process is similar at a high level.

Nit: "We want to" still sounds like something that goes in the patch
description. If I imagine this doc checked in, I'd rather it says
"that is, it describes how..." or "This doc attempts to describe
how..."

As you mentioned elsewhere, it seems like the process isn't so
different between smaller patches and large-scale designs - does that
mean it makes more sense to take out the large-scale disclaimer and
leave notes on which steps you can omit for simpler proposals?

> +
> +Starting a Discussion
> +---------------------
> +Proposals are made on the mailing list. Because members of the Git community
> +have a wide variety of experience, backgrounds, and values, proposals are
> +expected to include as much context as possible.

Could it be worth making this more explicit? Or pointing to similar
guidelines from SubmittingPatches? For example, I think we like to
understand where the need is coming from - is there a user base in
mind for this large-scale thing? Is it solving a scaling problem for
you somehow? These are things we ask for from cover letters, too.

> +
> +If the proposer is aware of individuals with an interest in the topic being
> +discussed, it is polite to CC them on the proposal to make sure they are aware
> +of the discussion.

What about "it is a good idea to CC them on the proposal to make sure
they're aware of the discussion, and let them know you're interested
in their thoughts"? Or some other way to point out that CCing people
this way also increases the chance of a lively discussion?

For later,

> +
> +Engaging in Discussion
> +----------------------
> +Once a proposal has been made, the community will discuss it on-list. While the
> +maintainer will often participate in discussions, it is not the maintainer's
> +responsibility to guide discussion; the proposer and any other interested
> +parties are expected to stay engaged in the discussion and ensure progress is
> +made.

Yes, I like very much that this is called out. I don't think this is
something someone would expect - not all project maintainers operate
this way, so we should document it for our project.

> +
> +Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is
> +expected that all discussion will adhere to the Code of Conduct rules.

I wouldn't mind seeing an explicit link to the CoC in our source tree from here.

> +
> +Other Discussion Venues
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Occasionally decision proposals are presented off-list, e.g. at the semi-regular
> +Contributors' Summit. While higher-bandwidth face-to-face discussion is often
> +useful for quickly reaching consensus among attendees, generally we expect to
> +summarize the discussion in notes that can later be presented on-list, so that
> +the full community has opportunity to engage in discussion.

Could you say why? Between the lines and with my experience with the
project I can understand that that's because the mailing list is The
place for communication, and all official decisionmaking happens here.
But since we're documenting how decisions happen, it seems worth
calling out explicitly that they must happen on this list.

It could also be nice to link to one of the great note writeups from
contributor summits past as an example.

> +
> +Finalizing a Decision
> +---------------------
> +After a suitable period of time has passed, the maintainer will judge whether or
> +not consensus has been reached. If so, the consensus decision will be
> +implemented. Otherwise, discussion may continue, or the proposal may be
> +abandoned.

I think this captures the status quo. But I'm also left saying,
"indefinitely?! how do we tell people 'thanks, but no thanks'?" Maybe
something we can discuss after this patch lands :)

> +
> +In general, it is not the maintainer's responsibility to implement any
> +particular decision. For decisions that require code changes, it is often the
> +case that the original proposer will make the necessary changes to implement the
> +decision, although it is also common for other interested parties to provide an
> +implementation.
> +
> +For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
> +the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.
> diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
> index 3f2383a12c..a04da672c6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/Makefile
> +++ b/Documentation/Makefile
> @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases
>  API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt)))
>  SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS)
>
> +TECH_DOCS += DecisionMaking
>  TECH_DOCS += ReviewingGuidelines
>  TECH_DOCS += MyFirstContribution
>  TECH_DOCS += MyFirstObjectWalk
>
> base-commit: 436d4e5b14df49870a897f64fe92c0ddc7017e4c
> --
> 2.44.0.683.g7961c838ac-goog
>
>

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@google.com> writes:

> Thanks for writing this. I, for one, would love to see the process
> evolve a little to account for the scale of work coming through the
> list on any given day. However, that's a discussion that will be
> easier to have once we have the status quo written and checked in.
> ...
> So, if nobody disagrees with the content of this document, I think we
> should absolutely merge it. It will be great for newbies to see what
> they're getting into, and for me to send to my boss to explain why my
> predictions for my team's patches landing are so broad.

Isn't it a bit too late to say "if nobody disagrees with", after it
was pointed out that the world around here does not work that way
(yet) about a week ago?

If we have an agreeable v2 already posted on the list that I missed,
then sorry, please disregard the above comment.

I still don't think it captures "the status quo", which is what you
want this document to be, about "larger-scale decisions", as the
Introduction of the document says.  Can we have a set of pointers in
the document, when it gets rerolled, to an actual example of how we
made such a larger-scale decision?  Without such illustration with a
real world example, it looks to me that what it describes is what we
wish the process to be (which is not necessarily I would object to),
but labeling it as "describing the status quo" is very much
objectionable.

Thanks.

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Josh Steadmon]

On 2024.04.15 17:24, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:
> 
> > The Git project currently operates according to informal, unstated norms
> > when it comes to making bigger-picture decisions (above and beyond
> > individual patches and patch series). Document these norms so that
> > newcomers to the project can learn what to expect.
> 
> It would be a good idea to write things down to help newcomers, but
> the thing is, that we do not do that kind of design discussion +
> design review + implementaiton waterfall here very often (a notable
> exception was the sha256 transition design).  I am afraid that
> "according to informal unstated norms" is an overstatement.  We do
> not have any "process" concrete, nothing more than concensus
> building among amicable parties.
> 
> Most of the time, technical decisions are made on individual series
> and by the time the consensus is reached on the series that it is
> good, the implementation should be finished, and there is no
> separate "implementation" step.  Newcomers would probably want to
> become familiar with that part of the decision process before
> joining the "big picture" discussion, I suspect.

Yes, as I noted in the doc (but need to emphasize), I'm not intending to
describe day-to-day patch review here. I'm thinking more of larger-scale
discussions such as "Introducing Rust into the Git project" [1] or the
spinoff discussion "Defining a platform support policy" [2].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAJoAoZnHGTFhfR6e6r=GMSfVbSNgLoHF-opaWYLbHppiuzi+Rg@mail.gmail.com/

While clearly nothing has been decided on those topics, it seems to me
at least that they follow a pattern of "discussion now, consensus
(hopefully) soon, implementation later".

Or do you think it's more accurate to say that we rarely/never make
decisions without patches? Does that mean it's pointless to start a
discussion without a patch series attached? I'm trying to decide whether
it's worth editing this doc for V2, or just starting over with a much
smaller one instead.

> > One particular blind spot for me is how the Project Leadership Committee
> > operates, or if that's even relevant to this doc.
> 
> I think this is the part PLC@SFC is supposed to be of relevance:
> 
> > +For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
> > +the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.
> 
> > +Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is
> > +expected that all discussion will adhere to the Code of Conduct rules.
> 
> It is very much worth mentioning CoC here.
> 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
> > index 3f2383a12c..a04da672c6 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/Makefile
> > +++ b/Documentation/Makefile
> > @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases
> >  API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt)))
> >  SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS)
> >  
> > +TECH_DOCS += DecisionMaking
> >  TECH_DOCS += ReviewingGuidelines
> >  TECH_DOCS += MyFirstContribution
> >  TECH_DOCS += MyFirstObjectWalk
> >
> > base-commit: 436d4e5b14df49870a897f64fe92c0ddc7017e4c

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Emily Shaffer]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:18 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@google.com> writes:
>
> > Thanks for writing this. I, for one, would love to see the process
> > evolve a little to account for the scale of work coming through the
> > list on any given day. However, that's a discussion that will be
> > easier to have once we have the status quo written and checked in.
> > ...
> > So, if nobody disagrees with the content of this document, I think we
> > should absolutely merge it. It will be great for newbies to see what
> > they're getting into, and for me to send to my boss to explain why my
> > predictions for my team's patches landing are so broad.
>
> Isn't it a bit too late to say "if nobody disagrees with", after it
> was pointed out that the world around here does not work that way
> (yet) about a week ago?

Well, so far we heard from one person who perceives it as status quo
(the author), one person new to the project, the maintainer, and me :)
I think Josh is working on a v2 with links as you asked.

I have certainly followed the process Josh described here for a couple
of large projects coming from my team - to mind, config-based hooks,
submodules UX proposal, and libification proposal all came with
discussion before any patches. I'd love to hear from others who have
been implementing large-scale changes in a different way, like brian,
or Taylor and the other GitHub folks, too - if this patch is too
different from what actually happens with their work, let's trim until
it isn't, instead.

>
> If we have an agreeable v2 already posted on the list that I missed,
> then sorry, please disregard the above comment.
>
> I still don't think it captures "the status quo", which is what you
> want this document to be, about "larger-scale decisions", as the
> Introduction of the document says.  Can we have a set of pointers in
> the document, when it gets rerolled, to an actual example of how we
> made such a larger-scale decision?  Without such illustration with a
> real world example, it looks to me that what it describes is what we
> wish the process to be (which is not necessarily I would object to),
> but labeling it as "describing the status quo" is very much
> objectionable.
>
> Thanks.

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

> While clearly nothing has been decided on those topics, it seems to me
> at least that they follow a pattern of "discussion now, consensus
> (hopefully) soon, implementation later".
>
> Or do you think it's more accurate to say that we rarely/never make
> decisions without patches?

As I said, I do think it is rare for us to start with only "ideas"
without anything concrete to comment on, and that is why I asked
some references (e.g., URLs into the archive) to a discussion in the
past of a larger decisions where (1) something is proposed, (2)
discussed, and (3) declaration that a consensus has reached, if a
document describes the status quo.

> Does that mean it's pointless to start a
> discussion without a patch series attached?

It does not necessarily mean it is not worth trying to do it more
often that we have done it rarely.  

Is it desirable to make more larger decisions to implement changes
that take longer effort and deeper commitments?  As long as we can
have a meaningful discussion, the "anything concrete to comment on"
I mentioned earlier in the previous paragraph does not have to be a
patch series.

> I'm trying to decide whether it's worth editing this doc for V2,
> or just starting over with a much smaller one instead.

And if the lack of documented process is a factor that contributes
to the rarity of such decisions, it is a reasonable goal to have a
documented process.  And learning from past sucesses (and failures)
by starting a document that describes the status quo is a good idea.

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@google.com> writes:

>> +Finalizing a Decision
>> +---------------------
>> +After a suitable period of time has passed, the maintainer will judge whether or
>> +not consensus has been reached. If so, the consensus decision will be
>> +implemented. Otherwise, discussion may continue, or the proposal may be
>> +abandoned.
>
> I think this captures the status quo. But I'm also left saying,
> "indefinitely?! how do we tell people 'thanks, but no thanks'?"

Wouldn't telling people "Thanks, but no thanks" count as a
consensus, which happens once a consensus to discard the proposal
has reached?

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> As I said, I do think it is rare for us to start with only "ideas"
> without anything concrete to comment on, and that is why I asked
> some references (e.g., URLs into the archive) to a discussion in the
> past of a larger decisions where (1) something is proposed, (2)
> discussed, and (3) declaration that a consensus has reached, if a
> document describes the status quo.

FYI, what I readily recall was the discussion that started here.

  https://lore.kernel.org/git/20170304011251.GA26789@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com/

It did have a few iterations and then near the end the consensus has
turned into a "patch" that adds the design document to our history,
but otherwise, it did not involve a "series" level patch reviews.

HTH..

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Enrico Mrass <emrass@google.com> writes:
>
>> I'd be curious to learn about norms or practices applied when no consensus
>> could be reached. It seems worth elaborating on that as part of documenting the
>> decision-making process.
>
> I may be forgetting things, but I do not know if there is a concrete
> "here is a norm that we have been using to reach a consensus, not
> just written down but it has been there" in the first place, let
> alone "here is what we do to resolve an irreconcilable differences".
>
> "We discuss and try to reach a consensus in an amicable way,
> sticking to CoC, etc." has mostly been good enough for our happy
> family, perhaps?
>
>> ... However, nothing
>> in the current description strikes me as specific to these larger-scale
>> decisions.
>
> I agree with that.

We didn't hear any more comments on this topic, but writing down how
the world works around here, with the goal to eventually have a set
of project governance rules, is valuable. Otherwise loud people may
act according to their own (unwritten) rules that annoy others and
harm the community.

Thanks.

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Josh Steadmon]

Yes, sorry for silence on this thread. I am working on a V2 but
probably won't have it ready today.

On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 7:45 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > Enrico Mrass <emrass@google.com> writes:
> >
> >> I'd be curious to learn about norms or practices applied when no consensus
> >> could be reached. It seems worth elaborating on that as part of documenting the
> >> decision-making process.
> >
> > I may be forgetting things, but I do not know if there is a concrete
> > "here is a norm that we have been using to reach a consensus, not
> > just written down but it has been there" in the first place, let
> > alone "here is what we do to resolve an irreconcilable differences".
> >
> > "We discuss and try to reach a consensus in an amicable way,
> > sticking to CoC, etc." has mostly been good enough for our happy
> > family, perhaps?
> >
> >> ... However, nothing
> >> in the current description strikes me as specific to these larger-scale
> >> decisions.
> >
> > I agree with that.
>
> We didn't hear any more comments on this topic, but writing down how
> the world works around here, with the goal to eventually have a set
> of project governance rules, is valuable. Otherwise loud people may
> act according to their own (unwritten) rules that annoy others and
> harm the community.
>
> Thanks.

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 7:45 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> We didn't hear any more comments on this topic, but writing down how
>> the world works around here, with the goal to eventually have a set
>> of project governance rules, is valuable. Otherwise loud people may
>> act according to their own (unwritten) rules that annoy others and
>> harm the community.

[jc: do not top post].

> Yes, sorry for silence on this thread. I am working on a V2 but
> probably won't have it ready today.

Don't be sorry; the message was not addressed to you, but for wider
community participants---especially the ones with more "clout" (or
"long timers" or whatever word we would use to describe those whose
opinions are trusted by others and count more) need to buy in if we
were to first agree on that it is good to have a set of written
rules, and to then agree on what rules to adopt.

We might want to pick ideas from https://fossgovernance.org/ for
example.

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Taylor Blau]

On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:08:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Yes, sorry for silence on this thread. I am working on a V2 but
> > probably won't have it ready today.
>
> Don't be sorry; the message was not addressed to you, but for wider
> community participants---especially the ones with more "clout" (or
> "long timers" or whatever word we would use to describe those whose
> opinions are trusted by others and count more) need to buy in if we
> were to first agree on that it is good to have a set of written
> rules, and to then agree on what rules to adopt.

I have been meaning to respond to this thread since I was mentioned in
it by Emily, but have been unsure of what to say.

On one hand, I think the document basically outlines the status-quo of
decision making for issues that are larger than the scope of a single
patch series (think "should we use Rust?", "what is our platform
support policy?", or "how should we approach libification?" not "is this
particular patch (series) correct?").

So in that sense, I think that the document is a good starting point,
and I think that it reasonably captures the status quo.

But I wish that we didn't have to have such a document in the first
place. In my opinion, I would much rather see decisions like "what is
our platform policy?" made according to discussions on a patch that
defines what that policy is. That way such decisions can be treated in
the same way as ordinary review is today, and we can avoid the need for
a separate process.

(For what it's worth, I thought that the SHA-256 transition was a good
example of this. The RFC was posted, and the discussion was had on the
patch series itself).

Another way of thinking about this is that I would be extremely
reluctant to see a similar document proposed for reviewing at the patch
series level. In my opinion, the system of reviewers and participants
discussing the series and the maintainer solely determining whether or
not consensus has been reached is a good one, and I would be extremely
hesitant to recommend changing it.

And I would advocate for a similar approach to decisions that have
implications beyond a single patch series.

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Patrick Steinhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5030 bytes --]

On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:29:13PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:08:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Yes, sorry for silence on this thread. I am working on a V2 but
> > > probably won't have it ready today.
> >
> > Don't be sorry; the message was not addressed to you, but for wider
> > community participants---especially the ones with more "clout" (or
> > "long timers" or whatever word we would use to describe those whose
> > opinions are trusted by others and count more) need to buy in if we
> > were to first agree on that it is good to have a set of written
> > rules, and to then agree on what rules to adopt.

Fair enough. Given that I have been contributing quite a bit more
recently I'll feel myself addressed here.

> I have been meaning to respond to this thread since I was mentioned in
> it by Emily, but have been unsure of what to say.
> 
> On one hand, I think the document basically outlines the status-quo of
> decision making for issues that are larger than the scope of a single
> patch series (think "should we use Rust?", "what is our platform
> support policy?", or "how should we approach libification?" not "is this
> particular patch (series) correct?").
> 
> So in that sense, I think that the document is a good starting point,
> and I think that it reasonably captures the status quo.
> 
> But I wish that we didn't have to have such a document in the first
> place. In my opinion, I would much rather see decisions like "what is
> our platform policy?" made according to discussions on a patch that
> defines what that policy is. That way such decisions can be treated in
> the same way as ordinary review is today, and we can avoid the need for
> a separate process.

With "such a document", do you refer to the one documenting the process
to do such changes or the RFC-style document?

If you mean the former I disagree and think that it would be great to
document reasonable approaches for how to get to an agreement with the
Git community. It's especially helpful for newcomers to the commuinity,
and I do get questions around "How to reach consensus in Git" all the
time at GitLab.

Now the important part to me is that we should retain flexibility and
allow us to adapt. It should rather be a helpful resource to newcomers
than a rigid set of requirements that everyone has to follow, in my
opinion.

If it's the latter (no need for an RFC-style document) I somewhat agree.
I'm of the opinion that patches are the best way to trigger a more
informed discussion because participants will know how something will
end up looking like. I also tend to send patch series for controversial
topics upstream without prior discussion, but my intent here is never to
force the result, but rather to force the discussion itself. This of
course comes with the big downside that you may end up wasting quite a
lot of your own time in case the community disagrees with your approach,
but that's acceptable to me most of the time.

It's only part of the story though. There are bigger changes that simply
don't make a ton of sense to propose in the above form, mostly because
their sheer scope is much larger. As you point out further down, things
like the SHA256 transition are in that realm.

Here I very much think that having a central place where such large
projects are tracked. Given that we have no issue tracker, I think the
next-best place to do this would be the Git repository itself. We
already do this for some larger topics, but I feel like the bar is quite
high right now. It doesn't make a ton of sense for example to have a
huge RFC for the removal of `the_repository`.

So something that I'd really love to see is if we adopted the micro
projects document [1] into Git itself and generalized it such that we
can add smallish sections for new large-scale projects. Ideally, such
projects could also have trailers that indicate who is interested in
those projects such that folks knew whom to reach out to if they want to
start contributing to the project. This would help us to document
consensus around new projects, and would help newcomers of the
community to pick up new projects.

Patrick

[1]: https://git.github.io/SoC-2024-Microprojects/

> (For what it's worth, I thought that the SHA-256 transition was a good
> example of this. The RFC was posted, and the discussion was had on the
> patch series itself).
> 
> Another way of thinking about this is that I would be extremely
> reluctant to see a similar document proposed for reviewing at the patch
> series level. In my opinion, the system of reviewers and participants
> discussing the series and the maintainer solely determining whether or
> not consensus has been reached is a good one, and I would be extremely
> hesitant to recommend changing it.
> 
> And I would advocate for a similar approach to decisions that have
> implications beyond a single patch series.
> 
> Thanks,
> Taylor
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Josh Steadmon]

On 2024.05.03 15:29, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:08:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Yes, sorry for silence on this thread. I am working on a V2 but
> > > probably won't have it ready today.
> >
> > Don't be sorry; the message was not addressed to you, but for wider
> > community participants---especially the ones with more "clout" (or
> > "long timers" or whatever word we would use to describe those whose
> > opinions are trusted by others and count more) need to buy in if we
> > were to first agree on that it is good to have a set of written
> > rules, and to then agree on what rules to adopt.
> 
> I have been meaning to respond to this thread since I was mentioned in
> it by Emily, but have been unsure of what to say.
> 
> On one hand, I think the document basically outlines the status-quo of
> decision making for issues that are larger than the scope of a single
> patch series (think "should we use Rust?", "what is our platform
> support policy?", or "how should we approach libification?" not "is this
> particular patch (series) correct?").
> 
> So in that sense, I think that the document is a good starting point,
> and I think that it reasonably captures the status quo.
> 
> But I wish that we didn't have to have such a document in the first
> place. In my opinion, I would much rather see decisions like "what is
> our platform policy?" made according to discussions on a patch that
> defines what that policy is. That way such decisions can be treated in
> the same way as ordinary review is today, and we can avoid the need for
> a separate process.

How would you feel about a doc outlining how the process changes as you
go from: A) small/medium patch series, to B) larger discussions with
(parts of) the proposal recorded in patches, to C) large discussions
with no patches? This is the structure I'm leaning towards for my V2
draft.


> (For what it's worth, I thought that the SHA-256 transition was a good
> example of this. The RFC was posted, and the discussion was had on the
> patch series itself).
> 
> Another way of thinking about this is that I would be extremely
> reluctant to see a similar document proposed for reviewing at the patch
> series level. In my opinion, the system of reviewers and participants
> discussing the series and the maintainer solely determining whether or
> not consensus has been reached is a good one, and I would be extremely
> hesitant to recommend changing it.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand why you wouldn't want the patch series
process documented? I'm just trying to capture the status quo, not to
propose or recommend any changes.


> And I would advocate for a similar approach to decisions that have
> implications beyond a single patch series.
> 
> Thanks,
> Taylor

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Taylor Blau]

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 09:12:15AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 03:29:13PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:08:15AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > > Yes, sorry for silence on this thread. I am working on a V2 but
> > > > probably won't have it ready today.
> > >
> > > Don't be sorry; the message was not addressed to you, but for wider
> > > community participants---especially the ones with more "clout" (or
> > > "long timers" or whatever word we would use to describe those whose
> > > opinions are trusted by others and count more) need to buy in if we
> > > were to first agree on that it is good to have a set of written
> > > rules, and to then agree on what rules to adopt.
>
> Fair enough. Given that I have been contributing quite a bit more
> recently I'll feel myself addressed here.
>
> > I have been meaning to respond to this thread since I was mentioned in
> > it by Emily, but have been unsure of what to say.
> >
> > On one hand, I think the document basically outlines the status-quo of
> > decision making for issues that are larger than the scope of a single
> > patch series (think "should we use Rust?", "what is our platform
> > support policy?", or "how should we approach libification?" not "is this
> > particular patch (series) correct?").
> >
> > So in that sense, I think that the document is a good starting point,
> > and I think that it reasonably captures the status quo.
> >
> > But I wish that we didn't have to have such a document in the first
> > place. In my opinion, I would much rather see decisions like "what is
> > our platform policy?" made according to discussions on a patch that
> > defines what that policy is. That way such decisions can be treated in
> > the same way as ordinary review is today, and we can avoid the need for
> > a separate process.
>
> With "such a document", do you refer to the one documenting the process
> to do such changes or the RFC-style document?

I did mean the former, but...

> If you mean the former I disagree and think that it would be great to
> document reasonable approaches for how to get to an agreement with the
> Git community. It's especially helpful for newcomers to the commuinity,
> and I do get questions around "How to reach consensus in Git" all the
> time at GitLab.

I think that this framing is more useful. I'd be happy to see us write a
helper document intended for new-comers that gives some techniques and
suggestions on how to drive discussions forward.

I would be less excited about a document that outlines a rigid process
for declaring when consensus has been met, since I think each situation
is unique, and the large-scale decisions that Josh's document seems to
target are probably not amenable to a one-size-fits-all approach.

> Now the important part to me is that we should retain flexibility and
> allow us to adapt. It should rather be a helpful resource to newcomers
> than a rigid set of requirements that everyone has to follow, in my
> opinion.

Yes, definitely.

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Taylor Blau]

On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 12:36:06PM -0700, Josh Steadmon wrote:
> How would you feel about a doc outlining how the process changes as you
> go from: A) small/medium patch series, to B) larger discussions with
> (parts of) the proposal recorded in patches, to C) large discussions
> with no patches? This is the structure I'm leaning towards for my V2
> draft.

That sounds like a reasonable direction to take.

> > Another way of thinking about this is that I would be extremely
> > reluctant to see a similar document proposed for reviewing at the patch
> > series level. In my opinion, the system of reviewers and participants
> > discussing the series and the maintainer solely determining whether or
> > not consensus has been reached is a good one, and I would be extremely
> > hesitant to recommend changing it.
>
> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand why you wouldn't want the patch series
> process documented? I'm just trying to capture the status quo, not to
> propose or recommend any changes.

Apologies, I misspoke here. I don't mean to say that such a document
shouldn't exist, but rather that I'd be hesitant to see a prescriptive
document outlining how patches are reviewed at too granular a level.

Having a document like Documentation/ReviewingGuidelines.txt makes sense
to me and seems like a good thing to keep.

Thanks,
Taylor

[PATCH v2] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Josh Steadmon]

The Git project currently operates according to an informal
consensus-building process, which is not currently well-described.
Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to help
inform newcomers to the project.

This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to
decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to
describe how the project currently operates today.

Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
---

Changes in V2:
* Split doc to treat patch series discussion as the general case, with
  larger discussions (with or without patches) as special situations.
* Add links to example discussions for certain situations
* Add link to contributor summit notes
* Add link to Code of Conduct
* Add justification for keeping discussion on-list
* Add paragraph about explicit negative consensus
* Minor reword of advice on when to CC experts
* Minor reword of doc intro to avoid indecisive text

 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/Makefile           |   1 +
 2 files changed, 123 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..55fa3e2185
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+Decision-Making Process in the Git Project
+==========================================
+
+Introduction
+------------
+This doc aims to describe the current decision-making process in the Git
+project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
+describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
+particular process or changes to the current process.
+
+Here we document how the project makes decisions for general patch series, and
+for larger-scale discussions (with or without patches).
+
+
+General Patch Series
+--------------------
+
+Starting a Discussion
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+For most changes, discussions are started by sending a patch series to the list.
+There is rarely any need to discuss or ask for approval prior to sending
+patches; the merit of both the general idea behind your change and the code to
+implement it will be discussed at the same time.
+
+NOTE: For general guides on creating and sending a patch series to the list, see
+link:SubmittingPatches.html[SubmittingPatches] and
+link:MyFirstContribution.html[MyFirstContribution]. The remainder of this
+doc will focus more on what to expect from the list discussion.
+
+Because members of the Git community have a wide variety of experience,
+backgrounds, and values, series are expected to include as much context as
+possible.
+
+If the proposer is aware of individuals with an interest in the subject of the
+change, it is helpful to CC them on the proposal to increase the likelihood of
+receiving constructive feedback.
+
+Engaging in Discussion
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+Once a proposal has been made, the community will discuss it on-list. While the
+maintainer will often participate in discussions, it is not the maintainer's
+responsibility to guide discussion; the proposer and any other interested
+parties are expected to stay engaged in the discussion and ensure progress is
+made.
+
+Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is
+expected that all discussion will adhere to the link:../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md[Code
+of Conduct] rules.
+
+Finalizing a Decision
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+If the maintainer judges that positive consensus has been reached on a topic,
+they will merge the series, usually to the 'next' integration branch. After a
+suitable period of time for testing by the community, changes are merged from
+'next' into 'master', from which official releases are tagged.
+
+If consensus has not been reached, discussion may continue, or the proposal may
+be abandoned if no one continues discussion. More rarely, explicit negative
+consensus may be reached if the community feels that the series is not suitable,
+in which case the series should be dropped and discussion ended.
+
+There are no strict guidelines used to judge when consensus has been reached,
+but generally we expect all points of feedback to have been addressed with
+either a fix or an explanation on why no change is necessary.
+
+
+Larger Discussions (with patches)
+---------------------------------
+As with discussions on a general patch series, starting a larger-scale
+discussion often begins by sending a patch or series to the list. This might
+take the form of an initial design doc, with implementation following in later
+iterations of the series (for example,
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding
+unit tests] or
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based
+hooks]), or it might include a full implementation from the beginning. In either
+case, discussion progresses as described above until consensus is reached or the
+topic is dropped.
+
+
+Larger Discussions (without patches)
+------------------------------------
+Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
+These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
+even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended,
+policy-oriented discussions (examples:
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust]
+or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving
+submodule UX]). In either case, discussion progresses as described above for
+general patch series.
+
+For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
+it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
+official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
+restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
+that can be more easily debated.
+
+If consensus around a decision has been reached but no implementation provided,
+it is not the maintainer's responsibility to implement any particular decision.
+For decisions that require code changes, it is often the case that the original
+proposer will follow up with a patch series, although it is also common for
+other interested parties to provide an implementation (or parts of the
+implementation, for very large changes).
+
+For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
+the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.
+
+
+Other Discussion Venues
+-----------------------
+Occasionally decision proposals are presented off-list, e.g. at the semi-regular
+Contributors' Summit. While higher-bandwidth face-to-face discussion is often
+useful for quickly reaching consensus among attendees, generally we expect to
+summarize the discussion in notes that can later be presented on-list. For an
+example, see the thread
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/AC2EB721-2979-43FD-922D-C5076A57F24B@jramsay.com.au/[Notes
+from Git Contributor Summit, Los Angeles (April 5, 2020)] by James Ramsay.
+
+We prefer that "official" discussion happens on the list so that the full
+community has opportunity to engage in discussion. This also means that the
+mailing list archives contain a more-or-less complete history of project
+discussions and decisions.
diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
index 3f2383a12c..a04da672c6 100644
--- a/Documentation/Makefile
+++ b/Documentation/Makefile
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases
 API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt)))
 SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS)
 
+TECH_DOCS += DecisionMaking
 TECH_DOCS += ReviewingGuidelines
 TECH_DOCS += MyFirstContribution
 TECH_DOCS += MyFirstObjectWalk

base-commit: 436d4e5b14df49870a897f64fe92c0ddc7017e4c
-- 
2.45.0.rc1.225.g2a3ae87e7f-goog

Re: [PATCH v2] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

> diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..55fa3e2185
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
> +Decision-Making Process in the Git Project
> +==========================================
> +
> +Introduction
> +------------
> +This doc aims to describe the current decision-making process in the Git

It might not be yet ready to claim this, but when it gets ready to
do so, we would want to say "aims to describe" -> "describes".

> +General Patch Series
> +--------------------

As if there is a separate section for "Special Patch Series"?  But
more seriously, I cannot quite shake this feeling that most of these
are covered in the beginning of the SubmittingPatches document.
There probably are small things that are missing over there that can
be found here, but given the large overlap, I have a feeling that
these additions are better done over there, not here, and limit the
scope of this document to decisions beyond the "General" patch
series.  There already is SubmittingPatches::[[patch-flow]] section
that may be a better place for the material we see here.

> +Starting a Discussion
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +For most changes, discussions are started by sending a patch series to the list.
> +There is rarely any need to discuss or ask for approval prior to sending
> +patches; the merit of both the general idea behind your change and the code to
> +implement it will be discussed at the same time.

We do not say "you need no permission or pre-approval" which may be
a good thing to add to SubmittingPatches.

> +NOTE: For general guides on creating and sending a patch series to the list, see
> +link:SubmittingPatches.html[SubmittingPatches] and
> +link:MyFirstContribution.html[MyFirstContribution]. The remainder of this
> +doc will focus more on what to expect from the list discussion.

So my question is if there is anything of substance left we should
have here, or if it is better to add them to SubmittingPatches so
that readers need to read one fewer documents.

> +Because members of the Git community have a wide variety of experience,
> +backgrounds, and values, series are expected to include as much context as
> +possible.
> +
> +If the proposer is aware of individuals with an interest in the subject of the
> +change, it is helpful to CC them on the proposal to increase the likelihood of
> +receiving constructive feedback.

SubmittingPatches::[[describe-changes]] and [[patch-flow]] might be
a better home for some sentences stolen from here?

> +Engaging in Discussion
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +Once a proposal has been made, the community will discuss it on-list. While the
> +maintainer will often participate in discussions, it is not the maintainer's
> +responsibility to guide discussion; the proposer and any other interested
> +parties are expected to stay engaged in the discussion and ensure progress is
> +made.
> +
> +Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is
> +expected that all discussion will adhere to the link:../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md[Code
> +of Conduct] rules.

Ditto for the above to SubmittingPatches::[[send-patches]] and [[patch-flow]]?

> +Finalizing a Decision
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +If the maintainer judges that positive consensus has been reached on a topic,
> +they will merge the series, usually to the 'next' integration branch. After a
> +suitable period of time for testing by the community, changes are merged from
> +'next' into 'master', from which official releases are tagged.
> +
> +If consensus has not been reached, discussion may continue, or the proposal may
> +be abandoned if no one continues discussion. More rarely, explicit negative
> +consensus may be reached if the community feels that the series is not suitable,
> +in which case the series should be dropped and discussion ended.
> +
> +There are no strict guidelines used to judge when consensus has been reached,
> +but generally we expect all points of feedback to have been addressed with
> +either a fix or an explanation on why no change is necessary.

Ditto for the above to SubmittingPatches::[[patch-flow]]?


> +Larger Discussions (with patches)
> +---------------------------------
> +As with discussions on a general patch series, starting a larger-scale
> +discussion often begins by sending a patch or series to the list. This might
> +take the form of an initial design doc, with implementation following in later
> +iterations of the series (for example,
> +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding
> +unit tests] or
> +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based
> +hooks]), or it might include a full implementation from the beginning. In either
> +case, discussion progresses as described above until consensus is reached or the
> +topic is dropped.

OK.

> +Larger Discussions (without patches)
> +------------------------------------
> +Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
> +These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
> +even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended,
> +policy-oriented discussions (examples:
> +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust]
> +or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving
> +submodule UX]). In either case, discussion progresses as described above for
> +general patch series.
> +
> +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
> +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
> +official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
> +restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
> +that can be more easily debated.
> +
> +If consensus around a decision has been reached but no implementation provided,
> +it is not the maintainer's responsibility to implement any particular decision.

As it is not anybody's responsibility, it may be confusing to single
the maintainer out in this sentence.  Saying "it is not" alone will
leave readers wondering "then whose responsibility is it?".  

I would say:

    When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
    proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,
    with help from others who were involved in the discussion as
    needed.

without pretending that the issues that needs consensus are black
and white "requiring code changes" vs "non-technical" without any
other colors.  IOW, I'd drop the following two paragraphs, as the
above would be sufficient.

> +For decisions that require code changes, it is often the case that the original
> +proposer will follow up with a patch series, although it is also common for
> +other interested parties to provide an implementation (or parts of the
> +implementation, for very large changes).
> +
> +For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
> +the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.


> +Other Discussion Venues
> +-----------------------
> +Occasionally decision proposals are presented off-list, e.g. at the semi-regular
> +Contributors' Summit. While higher-bandwidth face-to-face discussion is often
> +useful for quickly reaching consensus among attendees, generally we expect to
> +summarize the discussion in notes that can later be presented on-list. For an
> +example, see the thread
> +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/AC2EB721-2979-43FD-922D-C5076A57F24B@jramsay.com.au/[Notes
> +from Git Contributor Summit, Los Angeles (April 5, 2020)] by James Ramsay.
> +
> +We prefer that "official" discussion happens on the list so that the full
> +community has opportunity to engage in discussion. This also means that the
> +mailing list archives contain a more-or-less complete history of project
> +discussions and decisions.

OK.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH v2] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> There probably are small things that are missing over there that can
> be found here, but given the large overlap, I have a feeling that
> these additions are better done over there, not here, and limit the
> scope of this document to decisions beyond the "General" patch
> series.  There already is SubmittingPatches::[[patch-flow]] section
> that may be a better place for the material we see here.

To see how well this approach can go, I plan to spend some time
today reorganizing SubmittingPatches and enhancing some descriptions
in it.  The plan is roughly

 * Add a preamble to explain "why" you would want to send, and we
   would want to receive, patches in a larger picture.

 * Move [[patch-flow]] section to the very beginning, with a bit of
   enhanced description on the review cycle, i.e. what patches,
   their review comments, and review responses are expected to
   contain and for what goal.

 * Possibly remove things from other sections that would become
   redundant by the enhancement above.


   

[PATCH 0/2] Describe patch-flow better in SubmittingPatches

[Junio C Hamano]

So here is what I came up with.  The main idea behind this
"counter-proposal" is to make sure we do not add to the pile of
documents a new contributor needs to read before being able to send
"a perfect patch".  Reading SubmittingPatches alone should be
sufficient for them to understand what to expect and what are
expected of them.

Junio C Hamano (2):
  SubmittingPatches: move the patch-flow section earlier
  SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section

 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 126 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)

-- 
2.45.0-119-g0f3415f1f8

[PATCH 1/2] SubmittingPatches: move the patch-flow section earlier

[Junio C Hamano]

Before discussing the small details of how the patch gets sent, we'd
want to give people a larger picture first to set the expectation
straight.  The existing patch-flow section covers materials that are
suitable for that purpose, so move it to the beginning of the
document.  We'll update the contents of the section to clarify what
goal the patch submitter is working towards in the next step, which
will make it easier to understand the reason behind the individual
rules presented in latter parts of the document.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 98 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index 727992541c..142b82a71b 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -7,6 +7,55 @@ Here are some guidelines for contributing back to this
 project. There is also a link:MyFirstContribution.html[step-by-step tutorial]
 available which covers many of these same guidelines.
 
+[[patch-flow]]
+=== An ideal patch flow
+
+Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
+suggests to the contributors:
+
+. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.
+
+. Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
+  the change.
++
+The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
+are butchering.  These people happen to be the ones who are
+most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
+they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
+don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
+help you find out who they are.
+
+. You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may
+  even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form.
+
+. Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
+  spend their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
+
+. The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
+  good.  Send it to the maintainer and cc the list.
+
+. A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to `next`,
+  and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.
+
+In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
+from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for
+people to play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
+their trees themselves.
+
+[[patch-status]]
+=== Know the status of your patch after submission
+
+* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
+  master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied
+  patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
+  of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
+  tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
+  master).
+
+* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
+  entitled "What's cooking in git.git" giving
+  the status of various proposed changes.
+
 [[choose-starting-point]]
 === Choose a starting point.
 
@@ -569,55 +618,6 @@ Patches to these parts should be based on their trees.
 	https://github.com/jnavila/git-manpages-l10n/
 
 
-[[patch-flow]]
-== An ideal patch flow
-
-Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
-suggests to the contributors:
-
-. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.
-
-. Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
-  the change.
-+
-The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
-are butchering.  These people happen to be the ones who are
-most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
-they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
-don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
-help you find out who they are.
-
-. You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may
-  even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form.
-
-. Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
-  spend their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
-
-. The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
-  good.  Send it to the maintainer and cc the list.
-
-. A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to `next`,
-  and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.
-
-In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
-from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for
-people to play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
-their trees themselves.
-
-[[patch-status]]
-== Know the status of your patch after submission
-
-* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
-  master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied
-  patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
-  of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
-  tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
-  master).
-
-* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
-  entitled "What's cooking in git.git" giving
-  the status of various proposed changes.
-
 == GitHub CI[[GHCI]]
 
 With an account at GitHub, you can use GitHub CI to test your changes
-- 
2.45.0-119-g0f3415f1f8

[PATCH 2/2] SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section

[Junio C Hamano]

Explain a full lifecycle of a patch series upfront, so that it is
clear when key decisions to "accept" a series is made and how a new
patch series becomes a part of a new release.

Earlier, we described an idealized patch flow that nobody followed
in practice.  Instead, describe what flow was used in practice for
the past decade that worked well for us.

Fold the "you need to monitor the progress of your topic" section
into the primary "patch lifecycle" section, as that is one of the
things the patch submitter is responsible for.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 112 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index 142b82a71b..8922aae4a5 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -8,53 +8,76 @@ project. There is also a link:MyFirstContribution.html[step-by-step tutorial]
 available which covers many of these same guidelines.
 
 [[patch-flow]]
-=== An ideal patch flow
-
-Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
-suggests to the contributors:
-
-. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.
-
-. Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
-  the change.
+=== A not-so ideal patch flow
+
+To help us understand the reason behind various guidelines given later
+in the document, first lets understand how the lifecycle of a typical
+patch series for this project goes.
+
+. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.  You do not need any
+  pre-authorization from the project to do so.  Your patches will be
+  reviewed by other contributors on the mailing list, and the reviews
+  will be done to assess the merit of various things, like the general
+  idea behind your patch (including "is it solving a problem worth
+  solving in the first place?"), the reason behind the design of the
+  solution, and the actual implementation.
+
+. You send the patches to the list and cc people who may need to know
+  about the change.  Your goal is *not* necessarily to convince others
+  that what you are building is a good idea.  Your goal is to get help
+  in coming up with a solution for the "itch" that is better than what
+  you can build alone.
 +
-The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
-are butchering.  These people happen to be the ones who are
+The people who may need to know are the ones who worked on the code
+you are touching.  These people happen to be the ones who are
 most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
-they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
-don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
+they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help,
+you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
 help you find out who they are.
 
-. You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may
-  even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form.
-
-. Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
-  spend their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
-
-. The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
-  good.  Send it to the maintainer and cc the list.
-
-. A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to `next`,
-  and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.
-
-In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
-from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for
-people to play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
-their trees themselves.
-
-[[patch-status]]
-=== Know the status of your patch after submission
-
-* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
-  master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied
-  patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
-  of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
-  tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
-  master).
+. You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may even get
+  them in an "on top of your change" patch form.  You are expected to
+  respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
+  them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
+
+. Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and the people who
+  spent their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
+
+. While the above iterations improve your patches, the maintainer may
+  pick the patches up from the list and queue them to the `seen`
+  branch, in order to make it easier for people to play with it
+  without having to pick up and apply the patches to their trees
+  themselves.  Being in `seen` has no other meaning.  Specifically, it
+  does not mean the patch was "accepted" in any way.
+
+. When the discussion reaches a consensus that the latest iteration of
+  the patches are in good enough shape, the maintainer includes the
+  topic in the "What's cooking" report that are sent out a few times a
+  week to the mailing list, marked as "Will merge to 'next'."  This
+  decision is primarily made by the maintainer with the help from
+  reviewers.
+
+. Once the patches hit 'next', the discussion can still continue to
+  further improve them by adding more patches on top, but by the time
+  a topic gets merged to 'next', it is expected that everybody agreed
+  that the scope and the basic direction of the topic are appropriate,
+  so such an incremental updates are expected to be limited to small
+  corrections and polishing.  After a topic cooks for some time (like
+  7 calendar days) in 'next' without further tweaks on top, it gets
+  merged to the 'master' branch and wait to become part of the next
+  major release.
+
+Earlier versions of this document outlined a slightly different patch
+flow in an idealized world, where the original submitter gathered
+agreements from the participants of the discussion and sent the final
+"we all agreed that this is the good version--please apply" patches
+to the maintainer.  In practice, this almost never happened.  The flow
+described above reflects the reality much better and can be considered
+the "canonical" procedure to get the patch accepted to the project.
+
+In the following sections, many techniques and conventions are listed
+to help your patches get reviewed effectively.
 
-* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
-  entitled "What's cooking in git.git" giving
-  the status of various proposed changes.
 
 [[choose-starting-point]]
 === Choose a starting point.
@@ -241,8 +264,9 @@ reasons:
   which case, they can explain why they extend your code to cover
   files, too).
 
-The goal of your log message is to convey the _why_ behind your
-change to help future developers.
+The goal of your log message is to convey the _why_ behind your change
+to help future developers.  The reviewers will also make sure that
+your proposed log message will serve this purpose well.
 
 The first line of the commit message should be a short description (50
 characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION in linkgit:git-commit[1]),
-- 
2.45.0-119-g0f3415f1f8

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section

[Karthik Nayak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7866 bytes --]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Explain a full lifecycle of a patch series upfront, so that it is
> clear when key decisions to "accept" a series is made and how a new
> patch series becomes a part of a new release.
>
> Earlier, we described an idealized patch flow that nobody followed
> in practice.  Instead, describe what flow was used in practice for
> the past decade that worked well for us.
>
> Fold the "you need to monitor the progress of your topic" section
> into the primary "patch lifecycle" section, as that is one of the
> things the patch submitter is responsible for.
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 112 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index 142b82a71b..8922aae4a5 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -8,53 +8,76 @@ project. There is also a link:MyFirstContribution.html[step-by-step tutorial]
>  available which covers many of these same guidelines.
>
>  [[patch-flow]]
> -=== An ideal patch flow
> -
> -Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
> -suggests to the contributors:
> -
> -. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.
> -
> -. Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
> -  the change.
> +=== A not-so ideal patch flow
> +
> +To help us understand the reason behind various guidelines given later
> +in the document, first lets understand how the lifecycle of a typical
> +patch series for this project goes.
> +
> +. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.  You do not need any
> +  pre-authorization from the project to do so.  Your patches will be

Wouldn't it be better to have the following sentences after the next
para?

So the flow would be
- Have an itch. Code it up.
- Send patches to list.
- Get reviews.

> +  reviewed by other contributors on the mailing list, and the reviews
> +  will be done to assess the merit of various things, like the general
> +  idea behind your patch (including "is it solving a problem worth
> +  solving in the first place?"), the reason behind the design of the
> +  solution, and the actual implementation.
> +
> +. You send the patches to the list and cc people who may need to know
> +  about the change.  Your goal is *not* necessarily to convince others
> +  that what you are building is a good idea.  Your goal is to get help
> +  in coming up with a solution for the "itch" that is better than what
> +  you can build alone.
>  +
> -The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
> -are butchering.  These people happen to be the ones who are
> +The people who may need to know are the ones who worked on the code
> +you are touching.  These people happen to be the ones who are

This reads much _nicer_.

>  most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
> -they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
> -don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
> +they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help,
> +you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
>  help you find out who they are.
>
> -. You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may
> -  even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form.
> -
> -. Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
> -  spend their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
> -
> -. The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
> -  good.  Send it to the maintainer and cc the list.
> -
> -. A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to `next`,
> -  and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.
> -
> -In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
> -from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for
> -people to play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
> -their trees themselves.
> -
> -[[patch-status]]
> -=== Know the status of your patch after submission
> -
> -* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
> -  master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied
> -  patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
> -  of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
> -  tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
> -  master).
> +. You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may even get
> +  them in an "on top of your change" patch form.  You are expected to
> +  respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
> +  them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
> +
> +. Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and the people who
> +  spent their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
> +
> +. While the above iterations improve your patches, the maintainer may
> +  pick the patches up from the list and queue them to the `seen`
> +  branch, in order to make it easier for people to play with it
> +  without having to pick up and apply the patches to their trees
> +  themselves.  Being in `seen` has no other meaning.  Specifically, it
> +  does not mean the patch was "accepted" in any way.
> +
> +. When the discussion reaches a consensus that the latest iteration of
> +  the patches are in good enough shape, the maintainer includes the
> +  topic in the "What's cooking" report that are sent out a few times a
> +  week to the mailing list, marked as "Will merge to 'next'."  This
> +  decision is primarily made by the maintainer with the help from
> +  reviewers.
> +
> +. Once the patches hit 'next', the discussion can still continue to
> +  further improve them by adding more patches on top, but by the time
> +  a topic gets merged to 'next', it is expected that everybody agreed
> +  that the scope and the basic direction of the topic are appropriate,
> +  so such an incremental updates are expected to be limited to small
> +  corrections and polishing.  After a topic cooks for some time (like
> +  7 calendar days) in 'next' without further tweaks on top, it gets
> +  merged to the 'master' branch and wait to become part of the next
> +  major release.
> +
> +Earlier versions of this document outlined a slightly different patch
> +flow in an idealized world, where the original submitter gathered
> +agreements from the participants of the discussion and sent the final
> +"we all agreed that this is the good version--please apply" patches
> +to the maintainer.  In practice, this almost never happened.  The flow
> +described above reflects the reality much better and can be considered
> +the "canonical" procedure to get the patch accepted to the project.
> +
> +In the following sections, many techniques and conventions are listed
> +to help your patches get reviewed effectively.
>
> -* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
> -  entitled "What's cooking in git.git" giving
> -  the status of various proposed changes.
>
>  [[choose-starting-point]]
>  === Choose a starting point.
> @@ -241,8 +264,9 @@ reasons:
>    which case, they can explain why they extend your code to cover
>    files, too).
>
> -The goal of your log message is to convey the _why_ behind your
> -change to help future developers.
> +The goal of your log message is to convey the _why_ behind your change
> +to help future developers.  The reviewers will also make sure that
> +your proposed log message will serve this purpose well.
>
>  The first line of the commit message should be a short description (50
>  characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION in linkgit:git-commit[1]),
> --
> 2.45.0-119-g0f3415f1f8

Thanks, this is great improvement.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 690 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section

[Junio C Hamano]

Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:

>> +=== A not-so ideal patch flow
>> +
>> +To help us understand the reason behind various guidelines given later
>> +in the document, first lets understand how the lifecycle of a typical
>> +patch series for this project goes.
>> +
>> +. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.  You do not need any
>> +  pre-authorization from the project to do so.  Your patches will be
>
> Wouldn't it be better to have the following sentences after the next
> para?
>
> So the flow would be
> - Have an itch. Code it up.
> - Send patches to list.
> - Get reviews.

I am not sure what exactly you are suggesting.  "The next para"
meaning?  The sentence far below that begins with "In the following
sections, many techniques and ..."?

Also, "Get reviews" is not a single step that is an end of story, so
what you wrote is a bit misleading as a short summary.

The goal of this update is to reduce duplicates by describing a
typical life-cycle of a patch series from the inception of an idea
to the decision to include it in the next release here, so the
proposed "decision making" document can focus on issues at a level
larger than a topic of a patch series, and a contributor, especially
a new one who wants to give us their first patch series, can learn
by only reading these paragraphs how the world works around here
with their patch series from the beginning to the end.  So what
happens after "Get reviews." is a part of the same "flow".  Namely
these three paragraphs---the original submitter cannot just leave
with "now it is their problem" after they get reviews.  They are now
integral part of the discussion and we expect to see them see the
process through.

>> +. While the above iterations improve your patches, the maintainer may
>> +  pick the patches up from the list and queue them to the `seen`
>> +  branch, in order to make it easier for people to play with it
>> +  without having to pick up and apply the patches to their trees
>> +  themselves.  Being in `seen` has no other meaning.  Specifically, it
>> +  does not mean the patch was "accepted" in any way.
>> +
>> +. When the discussion reaches a consensus that the latest iteration of
>> +  the patches are in good enough shape, the maintainer includes the
>> +  topic in the "What's cooking" report that are sent out a few times a
>> +  week to the mailing list, marked as "Will merge to 'next'."  This
>> +  decision is primarily made by the maintainer with the help from
>> +  reviewers.
>> +
>> +. Once the patches hit 'next', the discussion can still continue to
>> +  further improve them by adding more patches on top, but by the time
>> +  a topic gets merged to 'next', it is expected that everybody agreed
>> +  that the scope and the basic direction of the topic are appropriate,
>> +  so such an incremental updates are expected to be limited to small
>> +  corrections and polishing.  After a topic cooks for some time (like
>> +  7 calendar days) in 'next' without further tweaks on top, it gets
>> +  merged to the 'master' branch and wait to become part of the next
>> +  major release.

>> +Earlier versions of this document outlined a slightly different patch
>> +flow in an idealized world, where the original submitter gathered
>> +agreements from the participants of the discussion and sent the final
>> +"we all agreed that this is the good version--please apply" patches
>> +to the maintainer.  In practice, this almost never happened.  The flow
>> +described above reflects the reality much better and can be considered
>> +the "canonical" procedure to get the patch accepted to the project.

I actually was expecting to hear more comments about this paragraph,
which makes a lame excuse for naming the section "A not-so ideal".
After sleeping on it, I think it belongs to the log message of this
change, not here.  Future wanna-be developers do not have to know
what process we wanted to have---they benefit from reading what the
process _is_ in practice in a more direct way.

>> +In the following sections, many techniques and conventions are listed
>> +to help your patches get reviewed effectively.

Thanks.

[PATCH v2 0/2] Describe life cycle of a patch series

[Junio C Hamano]

Start the SubmittingPatches document by describing the life cycle of
a typical patch series to give the readers a sense of what process
to expect, including how the key events like rerolls, merge to 'next',
and graduation to 'master' happen, and what are expected of them.

Relative to the initial version, 

 . [Patch 1/2] explains in its proposed log message that there is no
   content changes except for the section level adjustment

 . [Patch 2/2] has lost a paragraph about how the process is
   different from the "ideal", which is irrelevant to the target
   audience who want to learn what the current practice is.

I'll follow these patches up with a separate patch to clarify the
proposed "decision making" document by making it more focused on
deciding on issues at levels higher than an individual patch series,
which is fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document.

Junio C Hamano (2):
  SubmittingPatches: move the patch-flow section earlier
  SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section

 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 121 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)

-- 
2.45.0-119-g0f3415f1f8

[PATCH v2 1/2] SubmittingPatches: move the patch-flow section earlier

[Junio C Hamano]

Before discussing the small details of how the patch gets sent, we'd
want to give people a larger picture first to set the expectation
straight.  The existing patch-flow section covers materials that are
suitable for that purpose, so move it to the beginning of the
document.  We'll update the contents of the section to clarify what
goal the patch submitter is working towards in the next step, which
will make it easier to understand the reason behind the individual
rules presented in latter parts of the document.

This step only moves two sections (patch-flow and patch-status)
without changing their contents, except that their section levels
are demoted from Level 1 to Level 2 to fit better in the document
structure at their new place.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 98 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index 384893be1c..e82c119dfa 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -7,6 +7,55 @@ Here are some guidelines for contributing back to this
 project. There is also a link:MyFirstContribution.html[step-by-step tutorial]
 available which covers many of these same guidelines.
 
+[[patch-flow]]
+=== An ideal patch flow
+
+Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
+suggests to the contributors:
+
+. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.
+
+. Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
+  the change.
++
+The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
+are butchering.  These people happen to be the ones who are
+most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
+they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
+don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
+help you find out who they are.
+
+. You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may
+  even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form.
+
+. Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
+  spend their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
+
+. The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
+  good.  Send it to the maintainer and cc the list.
+
+. A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to `next`,
+  and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.
+
+In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
+from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for
+people to play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
+their trees themselves.
+
+[[patch-status]]
+=== Know the status of your patch after submission
+
+* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
+  master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied
+  patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
+  of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
+  tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
+  master).
+
+* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
+  entitled "What's cooking in git.git" giving
+  the status of various proposed changes.
+
 [[choose-starting-point]]
 === Choose a starting point.
 
@@ -562,55 +611,6 @@ repositories.
 
 Patches to these parts should be based on their trees.
 
-[[patch-flow]]
-== An ideal patch flow
-
-Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
-suggests to the contributors:
-
-. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.
-
-. Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
-  the change.
-+
-The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
-are butchering.  These people happen to be the ones who are
-most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
-they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
-don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
-help you find out who they are.
-
-. You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may
-  even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form.
-
-. Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
-  spend their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
-
-. The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
-  good.  Send it to the maintainer and cc the list.
-
-. A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to `next`,
-  and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.
-
-In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
-from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for
-people to play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
-their trees themselves.
-
-[[patch-status]]
-== Know the status of your patch after submission
-
-* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
-  master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied
-  patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
-  of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
-  tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
-  master).
-
-* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
-  entitled "What's cooking in git.git" giving
-  the status of various proposed changes.
-
 == GitHub CI[[GHCI]]
 
 With an account at GitHub, you can use GitHub CI to test your changes
-- 
2.45.0-119-g0f3415f1f8

[PATCH v2 2/2] SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section

[Junio C Hamano]

Explain a full lifecycle of a patch series upfront, so that it is
clear when key decisions to "accept" a series is made and how a new
patch series becomes a part of a new release.

Fold the "you need to monitor the progress of your topic" section
into the primary "patch lifecycle" section, as that is one of the
things the patch submitter is responsible for.  It is not like "I
sent a patch and responded to review messages, and now it is their
problem".  They need to see their patch through the patch life
cycle.

Earlier versions of this document outlined a slightly different
patch flow in an idealized world, where the original submitter
gathered agreements from the participants of the discussion and sent
the final "we all agreed that this is the good version--please
apply" patches to the maintainer.  In practice, this almost never
happened.  Instead, describe what flow was used in practice for the
past decade that worked well for us.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 103 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index e82c119dfa..8332073e27 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -8,53 +8,71 @@ project. There is also a link:MyFirstContribution.html[step-by-step tutorial]
 available which covers many of these same guidelines.
 
 [[patch-flow]]
-=== An ideal patch flow
+=== A typical life cycle of a patch series
 
-Here is an ideal patch flow for this project the current maintainer
-suggests to the contributors:
+To help us understand the reason behind various guidelines given later
+in the document, first let's understand how the life cycle of a
+typical patch series for this project goes.
 
-. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.
-
-. Send it to the list and cc people who may need to know about
-  the change.
+. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.  You do not need any
+  pre-authorization from the project to do so.
++
+Your patches will be reviewed by other contributors on the mailing
+list, and the reviews will be done to assess the merit of various
+things, like the general idea behind your patch (including "is it
+solving a problem worth solving in the first place?"), the reason
+behind the design of the solution, and the actual implementation.
+The guidelines given here are there to help your patches by making
+them easier to understand by the reviewers.
+
+. You send the patches to the list and cc people who may need to know
+  about the change.  Your goal is *not* necessarily to convince others
+  that what you are building is good.  Your goal is to get help in
+  coming up with a solution for the "itch" that is better than what
+  you can build alone.
 +
-The people who may need to know are the ones whose code you
-are butchering.  These people happen to be the ones who are
+The people who may need to know are the ones who worked on the code
+you are touching.  These people happen to be the ones who are
 most likely to be knowledgeable enough to help you, but
-they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask for help,
-don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
+they have no obligation to help you (i.e. you ask them for help,
+you don't demand).  +git log -p {litdd} _$area_you_are_modifying_+ would
 help you find out who they are.
 
-. You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may
-  even get them in an "on top of your change" patch form.
-
-. Polish, refine, and re-send to the list and the people who
-  spend their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
-
-. The list forms consensus that the last round of your patch is
-  good.  Send it to the maintainer and cc the list.
-
-. A topic branch is created with the patch and is merged to `next`,
-  and cooked further and eventually graduates to `master`.
-
-In any time between the (2)-(3) cycle, the maintainer may pick it up
-from the list and queue it to `seen`, in order to make it easier for
-people to play with it without having to pick up and apply the patch to
-their trees themselves.
-
-[[patch-status]]
-=== Know the status of your patch after submission
-
-* You can use Git itself to find out when your patch is merged in
-  master. `git pull --rebase` will automatically skip already-applied
-  patches, and will let you know. This works only if you rebase on top
-  of the branch in which your patch has been merged (i.e. it will not
-  tell you if your patch is merged in `seen` if you rebase on top of
-  master).
+. You get comments and suggestions for improvements.  You may even get
+  them in an "on top of your change" patch form.  You are expected to
+  respond to them with "Reply-All" on the mailing list, while taking
+  them into account while preparing an updated set of patches.
+
+. Polish, refine, and re-send your patches to the list and to the people
+  who spent their time to improve your patch.  Go back to step (2).
+
+. While the above iterations improve your patches, the maintainer may
+  pick the patches up from the list and queue them to the `seen`
+  branch, in order to make it easier for people to play with it
+  without having to pick up and apply the patches to their trees
+  themselves.  Being in `seen` has no other meaning.  Specifically, it
+  does not mean the patch was "accepted" in any way.
+
+. When the discussion reaches a consensus that the latest iteration of
+  the patches are in good enough shape, the maintainer includes the
+  topic in the "What's cooking" report that are sent out a few times a
+  week to the mailing list, marked as "Will merge to 'next'."  This
+  decision is primarily made by the maintainer with help from those
+  who participated in the review discussion.
+
+. After the patches are merged to the 'next' branch, the discussion
+  can still continue to further improve them by adding more patches on
+  top, but by the time a topic gets merged to 'next', it is expected
+  that everybody agrees that the scope and the basic direction of the
+  topic are appropriate, so such an incremental updates are limited to
+  small corrections and polishing.  After a topic cooks for some time
+  (like 7 calendar days) in 'next' without needing further tweaks on
+  top, it gets merged to the 'master' branch and wait to become part
+  of the next major release.
+
+In the following sections, many techniques and conventions are listed
+to help your patches get reviewed effectively in such a life cycle.
 
-* Read the Git mailing list, the maintainer regularly posts messages
-  entitled "What's cooking in git.git" giving
-  the status of various proposed changes.
 
 [[choose-starting-point]]
 === Choose a starting point.
@@ -241,8 +259,9 @@ reasons:
   which case, they can explain why they extend your code to cover
   files, too).
 
-The goal of your log message is to convey the _why_ behind your
-change to help future developers.
+The goal of your log message is to convey the _why_ behind your change
+to help future developers.  The reviewers will also make sure that
+your proposed log message will serve this purpose well.
 
 The first line of the commit message should be a short description (50
 characters is the soft limit, see DISCUSSION in linkgit:git-commit[1]),
-- 
2.45.0-119-g0f3415f1f8

[PATCH] decisions: focus on larger scale issues

[Junio C Hamano]

Remove "General Patch Series" section, as its contents should be
fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document, and make this new
document primarily about decisions at a larger scale.  Adjust a few
sentences that used to refer to an earlier description on patch
discussion to refer to the SubmittingPatches document instead.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 86 +++++++-------------------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
index 55fa3e2185..274ddfa62c 100644
--- a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
+++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
@@ -3,79 +3,27 @@ Decision-Making Process in the Git Project
 
 Introduction
 ------------
-This doc aims to describe the current decision-making process in the Git
+This document describes the current decision-making process in the Git
 project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
 describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
 particular process or changes to the current process.
 
-Here we document how the project makes decisions for general patch series, and
-for larger-scale discussions (with or without patches).
-
-
-General Patch Series
---------------------
-
-Starting a Discussion
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-For most changes, discussions are started by sending a patch series to the list.
-There is rarely any need to discuss or ask for approval prior to sending
-patches; the merit of both the general idea behind your change and the code to
-implement it will be discussed at the same time.
-
-NOTE: For general guides on creating and sending a patch series to the list, see
-link:SubmittingPatches.html[SubmittingPatches] and
-link:MyFirstContribution.html[MyFirstContribution]. The remainder of this
-doc will focus more on what to expect from the list discussion.
-
-Because members of the Git community have a wide variety of experience,
-backgrounds, and values, series are expected to include as much context as
-possible.
-
-If the proposer is aware of individuals with an interest in the subject of the
-change, it is helpful to CC them on the proposal to increase the likelihood of
-receiving constructive feedback.
-
-Engaging in Discussion
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Once a proposal has been made, the community will discuss it on-list. While the
-maintainer will often participate in discussions, it is not the maintainer's
-responsibility to guide discussion; the proposer and any other interested
-parties are expected to stay engaged in the discussion and ensure progress is
-made.
-
-Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is
-expected that all discussion will adhere to the link:../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md[Code
-of Conduct] rules.
-
-Finalizing a Decision
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-If the maintainer judges that positive consensus has been reached on a topic,
-they will merge the series, usually to the 'next' integration branch. After a
-suitable period of time for testing by the community, changes are merged from
-'next' into 'master', from which official releases are tagged.
-
-If consensus has not been reached, discussion may continue, or the proposal may
-be abandoned if no one continues discussion. More rarely, explicit negative
-consensus may be reached if the community feels that the series is not suitable,
-in which case the series should be dropped and discussion ended.
-
-There are no strict guidelines used to judge when consensus has been reached,
-but generally we expect all points of feedback to have been addressed with
-either a fix or an explanation on why no change is necessary.
+Here we document how the project makes decisions for discussions
+(with or without patches), in scale larger than an individual patch
+series (which is fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document).
 
 
 Larger Discussions (with patches)
 ---------------------------------
-As with discussions on a general patch series, starting a larger-scale
+As with discussions on an individual patch series, starting a larger-scale
 discussion often begins by sending a patch or series to the list. This might
 take the form of an initial design doc, with implementation following in later
 iterations of the series (for example,
-link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding
-unit tests] or
-link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based
-hooks]), or it might include a full implementation from the beginning. In either
-case, discussion progresses as described above until consensus is reached or the
-topic is dropped.
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding unit tests] or
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based hooks]),
+or it might include a full implementation from the beginning.
+In either case, discussion progresses the same way for an individual patch series,
+until consensus is reached or the topic is dropped.
 
 
 Larger Discussions (without patches)
@@ -85,9 +33,8 @@ These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
 even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended,
 policy-oriented discussions (examples:
 link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust]
-or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving
-submodule UX]). In either case, discussion progresses as described above for
-general patch series.
+or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving submodule UX]).
+In either case, discussion progresses as described above for general patch series.
 
 For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
 it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
@@ -95,8 +42,11 @@ official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
 restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
 that can be more easily debated.
 
-If consensus around a decision has been reached but no implementation provided,
-it is not the maintainer's responsibility to implement any particular decision.
+When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
+proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,
+with help from others who were involved in the discussion, as
+needed.
+
 For decisions that require code changes, it is often the case that the original
 proposer will follow up with a patch series, although it is also common for
 other interested parties to provide an implementation (or parts of the
@@ -104,6 +54,8 @@ implementation, for very large changes).
 
 For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
 the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.
+The project leadership committe (PLC) may help the implementation of
+policy decisions.
 
 
 Other Discussion Venues
-- 
2.45.0-119-g0f3415f1f8

Re: [PATCH 2/2] SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section

[Karthik Nayak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6020 bytes --]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> +=== A not-so ideal patch flow
>>> +
>>> +To help us understand the reason behind various guidelines given later
>>> +in the document, first lets understand how the lifecycle of a typical
>>> +patch series for this project goes.
>>> +
>>> +. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.  You do not need any
>>> +  pre-authorization from the project to do so.  Your patches will be
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to have the following sentences after the next
>> para?
>>
>> So the flow would be
>> - Have an itch. Code it up.
>> - Send patches to list.
>> - Get reviews.
>
> I am not sure what exactly you are suggesting.  "The next para"
> meaning?  The sentence far below that begins with "In the following
> sections, many techniques and ..."?
>

Let me be more verbose, I was suggesting to change it to:

+. You come up with an itch.  You code it up.  You do not need any
+  pre-authorization from the project to do so.
+
+. You send the patches to the list and cc people who may need to know
+  about the change.  Your goal is *not* necessarily to convince others
+  that what you are building is a good idea.  Your goal is to get help
+  in coming up with a solution for the "itch" that is better than what
+  you can build alone.
+
+. Your patches will be reviewed by other contributors on the mailing
+  list, and the reviews will be done to assess the merit of various
+  things, like the general idea behind your patch (including "is it
+  solving a problem worth solving in the first place?"), the reason
+  behind the design of the solution, and the actual implementation.


> Also, "Get reviews" is not a single step that is an end of story, so
> what you wrote is a bit misleading as a short summary.
>

I was trying to be brief, my intention was to capture the whole block
which, I agree wasn't the best shortening.

> The goal of this update is to reduce duplicates by describing a
> typical life-cycle of a patch series from the inception of an idea
> to the decision to include it in the next release here, so the
> proposed "decision making" document can focus on issues at a level
> larger than a topic of a patch series, and a contributor, especially
> a new one who wants to give us their first patch series, can learn
> by only reading these paragraphs how the world works around here
> with their patch series from the beginning to the end.  So what
> happens after "Get reviews." is a part of the same "flow".  Namely
> these three paragraphs---the original submitter cannot just leave
> with "now it is their problem" after they get reviews.  They are now
> integral part of the discussion and we expect to see them see the
> process through.

I see what you're trying to say, my comment was on the fact that it
seemed like there was jumps between the timeline of events and seemed
confusing, with my suggestion we still hold the same points and just
reshuffle the order a little to ensure that the flow of events is a
little easier to understand.



>>> +. While the above iterations improve your patches, the maintainer may
>>> +  pick the patches up from the list and queue them to the `seen`
>>> +  branch, in order to make it easier for people to play with it
>>> +  without having to pick up and apply the patches to their trees
>>> +  themselves.  Being in `seen` has no other meaning.  Specifically, it
>>> +  does not mean the patch was "accepted" in any way.
>>> +
>>> +. When the discussion reaches a consensus that the latest iteration of
>>> +  the patches are in good enough shape, the maintainer includes the
>>> +  topic in the "What's cooking" report that are sent out a few times a
>>> +  week to the mailing list, marked as "Will merge to 'next'."  This
>>> +  decision is primarily made by the maintainer with the help from
>>> +  reviewers.
>>> +
>>> +. Once the patches hit 'next', the discussion can still continue to
>>> +  further improve them by adding more patches on top, but by the time
>>> +  a topic gets merged to 'next', it is expected that everybody agreed
>>> +  that the scope and the basic direction of the topic are appropriate,
>>> +  so such an incremental updates are expected to be limited to small
>>> +  corrections and polishing.  After a topic cooks for some time (like
>>> +  7 calendar days) in 'next' without further tweaks on top, it gets
>>> +  merged to the 'master' branch and wait to become part of the next
>>> +  major release.
>

I wasn't referring to the above three paragraphs and I agree with the
points laid down here, I also happened to have missed reading and
responding to your mail on my series [1], around how to iterate your
patches and check for and resolve conflicts with other ongoing topics.

I think that would be a great value add to these points. I will smoothen
it and send it to the list soon.

>>> +Earlier versions of this document outlined a slightly different patch
>>> +flow in an idealized world, where the original submitter gathered
>>> +agreements from the participants of the discussion and sent the final
>>> +"we all agreed that this is the good version--please apply" patches
>>> +to the maintainer.  In practice, this almost never happened.  The flow
>>> +described above reflects the reality much better and can be considered
>>> +the "canonical" procedure to get the patch accepted to the project.
>
> I actually was expecting to hear more comments about this paragraph,
> which makes a lame excuse for naming the section "A not-so ideal".
> After sleeping on it, I think it belongs to the log message of this
> change, not here.  Future wanna-be developers do not have to know
> what process we wanted to have---they benefit from reading what the
> process _is_ in practice in a more direct way.
>
>>> +In the following sections, many techniques and conventions are listed
>>> +to help your patches get reviewed effectively.
>
> Thanks.

Thanks

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqy18lpoqg.fsf@gitster.g/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 690 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Describe life cycle of a patch series

[Josh Steadmon]

On 2024.05.10 09:55, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Start the SubmittingPatches document by describing the life cycle of
> a typical patch series to give the readers a sense of what process
> to expect, including how the key events like rerolls, merge to 'next',
> and graduation to 'master' happen, and what are expected of them.
> 
> Relative to the initial version, 
> 
>  . [Patch 1/2] explains in its proposed log message that there is no
>    content changes except for the section level adjustment
> 
>  . [Patch 2/2] has lost a paragraph about how the process is
>    different from the "ideal", which is irrelevant to the target
>    audience who want to learn what the current practice is.
> 
> I'll follow these patches up with a separate patch to clarify the
> proposed "decision making" document by making it more focused on
> deciding on issues at levels higher than an individual patch series,
> which is fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document.
> 
> Junio C Hamano (2):
>   SubmittingPatches: move the patch-flow section earlier
>   SubmittingPatches: extend the "flow" section
> 
>  Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 121 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.45.0-119-g0f3415f1f8
> 

This version looks good to me.

Re: [PATCH] decisions: focus on larger scale issues

[Josh Steadmon]

On 2024.05.10 09:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Remove "General Patch Series" section, as its contents should be
> fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document, and make this new
> document primarily about decisions at a larger scale.  Adjust a few
> sentences that used to refer to an earlier description on patch
> discussion to refer to the SubmittingPatches document instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 86 +++++++-------------------------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)

Looks good to me. I'll squash this in to the next version I send out.

Re: [PATCH] decisions: focus on larger scale issues

[Junio C Hamano]

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

> On 2024.05.10 09:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Remove "General Patch Series" section, as its contents should be
>> fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document, and make this new
>> document primarily about decisions at a larger scale.  Adjust a few
>> sentences that used to refer to an earlier description on patch
>> discussion to refer to the SubmittingPatches document instead.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 86 +++++++-------------------------
>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>
> Looks good to me. I'll squash this in to the next version I send out.

Thanks.

[PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Josh Steadmon]

The Git project currently operates according to an informal
consensus-building process, which is currently described in the
SubmittingPatches document. However, that focuses on small/medium-scale
patch series. For larger-scale decisions, the process is not as well
described. Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to
help inform newcomers to the project.

This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to
decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to
describe how the project currently operates today.

Co-authored-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
---
doc: describe the project's decision-making process

Changes in V3:
* Squash in Junio's suggested patch to remove discussion of small-scale
  patch series.

Changes in V2:
* Split doc to treat patch series discussion as the general case, with
  larger discussions (with or without patches) as special situations.
* Add links to example discussions for certain situations
* Add link to contributor summit notes
* Add link to Code of Conduct doc
* Add justification for keeping discussion on-list
* Add paragraph about explicit negative consensus
* Minor reword of advice on when to CC experts
* MInor reword of doc intro to avoid indecisive text

Range-diff against v2:
1:  4a829792bf ! 1:  5446ca49e0 doc: describe the project's decision-making process
    @@ Commit message
         doc: describe the project's decision-making process
     
         The Git project currently operates according to an informal
    -    consensus-building process, which is not currently well-described.
    -    Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to help
    -    inform newcomers to the project.
    +    consensus-building process, which is currently described in the
    +    SubmittingPatches document. However, that focuses on small/medium-scale
    +    patch series. For larger-scale decisions, the process is not as well
    +    described. Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to
    +    help inform newcomers to the project.
     
         This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to
         decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to
         describe how the project currently operates today.
     
    +    Co-authored-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
     
      ## Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new) ##
     @@
    @@ Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new)
     +
     +Introduction
     +------------
    -+This doc aims to describe the current decision-making process in the Git
    ++This document describes the current decision-making process in the Git
     +project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
     +describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
     +particular process or changes to the current process.
     +
    -+Here we document how the project makes decisions for general patch series, and
    -+for larger-scale discussions (with or without patches).
    -+
    -+
    -+General Patch Series
    -+--------------------
    -+
    -+Starting a Discussion
    -+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    -+For most changes, discussions are started by sending a patch series to the list.
    -+There is rarely any need to discuss or ask for approval prior to sending
    -+patches; the merit of both the general idea behind your change and the code to
    -+implement it will be discussed at the same time.
    -+
    -+NOTE: For general guides on creating and sending a patch series to the list, see
    -+link:SubmittingPatches.html[SubmittingPatches] and
    -+link:MyFirstContribution.html[MyFirstContribution]. The remainder of this
    -+doc will focus more on what to expect from the list discussion.
    -+
    -+Because members of the Git community have a wide variety of experience,
    -+backgrounds, and values, series are expected to include as much context as
    -+possible.
    -+
    -+If the proposer is aware of individuals with an interest in the subject of the
    -+change, it is helpful to CC them on the proposal to increase the likelihood of
    -+receiving constructive feedback.
    -+
    -+Engaging in Discussion
    -+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    -+Once a proposal has been made, the community will discuss it on-list. While the
    -+maintainer will often participate in discussions, it is not the maintainer's
    -+responsibility to guide discussion; the proposer and any other interested
    -+parties are expected to stay engaged in the discussion and ensure progress is
    -+made.
    -+
    -+Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to discuss the matter. It is
    -+expected that all discussion will adhere to the link:../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md[Code
    -+of Conduct] rules.
    -+
    -+Finalizing a Decision
    -+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    -+If the maintainer judges that positive consensus has been reached on a topic,
    -+they will merge the series, usually to the 'next' integration branch. After a
    -+suitable period of time for testing by the community, changes are merged from
    -+'next' into 'master', from which official releases are tagged.
    -+
    -+If consensus has not been reached, discussion may continue, or the proposal may
    -+be abandoned if no one continues discussion. More rarely, explicit negative
    -+consensus may be reached if the community feels that the series is not suitable,
    -+in which case the series should be dropped and discussion ended.
    -+
    -+There are no strict guidelines used to judge when consensus has been reached,
    -+but generally we expect all points of feedback to have been addressed with
    -+either a fix or an explanation on why no change is necessary.
    ++Here we document how the project makes decisions for discussions
    ++(with or without patches), in scale larger than an individual patch
    ++series (which is fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document).
     +
     +
     +Larger Discussions (with patches)
     +---------------------------------
    -+As with discussions on a general patch series, starting a larger-scale
    ++As with discussions on an individual patch series, starting a larger-scale
     +discussion often begins by sending a patch or series to the list. This might
     +take the form of an initial design doc, with implementation following in later
     +iterations of the series (for example,
    -+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding
    -+unit tests] or
    -+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based
    -+hooks]), or it might include a full implementation from the beginning. In either
    -+case, discussion progresses as described above until consensus is reached or the
    -+topic is dropped.
    ++link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding unit tests] or
    ++link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based hooks]),
    ++or it might include a full implementation from the beginning.
    ++In either case, discussion progresses the same way for an individual patch series,
    ++until consensus is reached or the topic is dropped.
     +
     +
     +Larger Discussions (without patches)
    @@ Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new)
     +even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended,
     +policy-oriented discussions (examples:
     +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust]
    -+or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving
    -+submodule UX]). In either case, discussion progresses as described above for
    -+general patch series.
    ++or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving submodule UX]).
    ++In either case, discussion progresses as described above for general patch series.
     +
     +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
     +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
    @@ Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new)
     +restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
     +that can be more easily debated.
     +
    -+If consensus around a decision has been reached but no implementation provided,
    -+it is not the maintainer's responsibility to implement any particular decision.
    ++When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
    ++proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,
    ++with help from others who were involved in the discussion, as
    ++needed.
    ++
     +For decisions that require code changes, it is often the case that the original
     +proposer will follow up with a patch series, although it is also common for
     +other interested parties to provide an implementation (or parts of the
    @@ Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new)
     +
     +For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
     +the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.
    ++The project leadership committe (PLC) may help the implementation of
    ++policy decisions.
     +
     +
     +Other Discussion Venues

 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/Makefile           |  1 +
 2 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..274ddfa62c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+Decision-Making Process in the Git Project
+==========================================
+
+Introduction
+------------
+This document describes the current decision-making process in the Git
+project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
+describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
+particular process or changes to the current process.
+
+Here we document how the project makes decisions for discussions
+(with or without patches), in scale larger than an individual patch
+series (which is fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document).
+
+
+Larger Discussions (with patches)
+---------------------------------
+As with discussions on an individual patch series, starting a larger-scale
+discussion often begins by sending a patch or series to the list. This might
+take the form of an initial design doc, with implementation following in later
+iterations of the series (for example,
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding unit tests] or
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based hooks]),
+or it might include a full implementation from the beginning.
+In either case, discussion progresses the same way for an individual patch series,
+until consensus is reached or the topic is dropped.
+
+
+Larger Discussions (without patches)
+------------------------------------
+Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
+These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
+even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended,
+policy-oriented discussions (examples:
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust]
+or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving submodule UX]).
+In either case, discussion progresses as described above for general patch series.
+
+For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
+it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
+official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
+restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
+that can be more easily debated.
+
+When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
+proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,
+with help from others who were involved in the discussion, as
+needed.
+
+For decisions that require code changes, it is often the case that the original
+proposer will follow up with a patch series, although it is also common for
+other interested parties to provide an implementation (or parts of the
+implementation, for very large changes).
+
+For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
+the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.
+The project leadership committe (PLC) may help the implementation of
+policy decisions.
+
+
+Other Discussion Venues
+-----------------------
+Occasionally decision proposals are presented off-list, e.g. at the semi-regular
+Contributors' Summit. While higher-bandwidth face-to-face discussion is often
+useful for quickly reaching consensus among attendees, generally we expect to
+summarize the discussion in notes that can later be presented on-list. For an
+example, see the thread
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/AC2EB721-2979-43FD-922D-C5076A57F24B@jramsay.com.au/[Notes
+from Git Contributor Summit, Los Angeles (April 5, 2020)] by James Ramsay.
+
+We prefer that "official" discussion happens on the list so that the full
+community has opportunity to engage in discussion. This also means that the
+mailing list archives contain a more-or-less complete history of project
+discussions and decisions.
diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
index 3f2383a12c..a04da672c6 100644
--- a/Documentation/Makefile
+++ b/Documentation/Makefile
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases
 API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt)))
 SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS)
 
+TECH_DOCS += DecisionMaking
 TECH_DOCS += ReviewingGuidelines
 TECH_DOCS += MyFirstContribution
 TECH_DOCS += MyFirstObjectWalk

base-commit: 436d4e5b14df49870a897f64fe92c0ddc7017e4c
-- 
2.45.0.rc1.225.g2a3ae87e7f-goog

Re: [PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

> Changes in V3:
> * Squash in Junio's suggested patch to remove discussion of small-scale
>   patch series.

I do not think I deserve Co-authorship for the small changes in the
remaining document, as my contributions going from v2 to v3 were
mostly line removal ;-).

> +Larger Discussions (with patches)
> +---------------------------------

Reads well and looks sensible.

> +Larger Discussions (without patches)
> +------------------------------------
> +Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
> +These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
> +...

I do not know how strongly assertive you wanted to be, but I suspect
that it will read better with "might" -> "may".

> ...
> +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
> +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
> +official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
> +restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
> +that can be more easily debated.

It is a bit fuzzy what "other specific implementation" wants to
convey.  A mere "RFC" is often an unfinished work-in-progress, and
if the "other specific implementation" is different from it, then
what it would be?  A minimum viable product?  A proof-of-concept?

All other parts did read very well.

Not that the above was unreadable, but just my reading hiccupped at
around "other specific implementation".

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Patrick Steinhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3099 bytes --]

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 02:20:53PM -0700, Josh Steadmon wrote:
[snip]
> diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..274ddfa62c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
> +Decision-Making Process in the Git Project
> +==========================================
> +
> +Introduction
> +------------
> +This document describes the current decision-making process in the Git
> +project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
> +describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
> +particular process or changes to the current process.

Nit: I think we _do_ want to recommend a process, but don't want to cast
it into stone.

[snip]
> +Larger Discussions (without patches)
> +------------------------------------
> +Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
> +These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
> +even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended,
> +policy-oriented discussions (examples:
> +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust]
> +or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving submodule UX]).
> +In either case, discussion progresses as described above for general patch series.
> +
> +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
> +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
> +official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
> +restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
> +that can be more easily debated.
> +
> +When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
> +proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,
> +with help from others who were involved in the discussion, as
> +needed.

One thing I want to eventually propose is to go further here:
documenting the outcome of the discussion, regardless of whether we
decided for or against it, in a low-overhead format. This could for
example be a small paragraph in a "Documentation/Projects" file that
points to the on-list discussion together with a small summary of why
the decision was reached.

In the case of the Rust discussion for example I think we ultimately
decided against it due to platform limitations of the toolchain. This
limitation will potentially go away at some point in time, and that
would allow us to revisit this discussion. Now if we had documented
somewhere that the decision against Rust was platform support, then it
is easy to revive the discussion at a later point and point to that
exact reason, arguing why it's not longer a problem now.

I don't think that this change needs to be part of your patch though, as
your intent is only to document processes as they work right now. But I
wanted to bring this up regardless as a foreshadowing.

Overall this document looks good to me, thanks!

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

>> +This document describes the current decision-making process in the Git
>> +project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
>> +describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
>> +particular process or changes to the current process.
>
> Nit: I think we _do_ want to recommend a process, but don't want to cast
> it into stone.

Yup.  How would we rephase it?  "... rather than recommending an
idealized process that we wish to use (but do not)?"

>> +When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
>> +proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,
>> +with help from others who were involved in the discussion, as
>> +needed.
>
> One thing I want to eventually propose is to go further here:
> documenting the outcome of the discussion, regardless of whether we
> decided for or against it, in a low-overhead format. This could for
> example be a small paragraph in a "Documentation/Projects" file that
> points to the on-list discussion together with a small summary of why
> the decision was reached.

Having such a list certainly is handy; the problem is how to keep
them current, though.

> I don't think that this change needs to be part of your patch though, as
> your intent is only to document processes as they work right now. But I
> wanted to bring this up regardless as a foreshadowing.

Yup, I agree that it is probably better left out of the scope for
now.

If we are in the "expressing wish" mode, another thing we might find
it useful, if such a thing existed, is a list of principles for
designing new things.  E.g., not changing an established behaviour
to prioritize protecting existing users' muscle memory over whims of
the day by folks who haven't had enough time to familialize with it.
E.g., the plumbing output is sacred but the Porcelain output is
subject to change to improve human-user experience with coloring
and pagination, etc.

Re: [PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Josh Steadmon]

On 2024.05.16 15:01, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:
> 
> > Changes in V3:
> > * Squash in Junio's suggested patch to remove discussion of small-scale
> >   patch series.
> 
> I do not think I deserve Co-authorship for the small changes in the
> remaining document, as my contributions going from v2 to v3 were
> mostly line removal ;-).

All right, switched it to Helped-by :)

> > +Larger Discussions (with patches)
> > +---------------------------------
> 
> Reads well and looks sensible.
> 
> > +Larger Discussions (without patches)
> > +------------------------------------
> > +Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
> > +These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
> > +...
> 
> I do not know how strongly assertive you wanted to be, but I suspect
> that it will read better with "might" -> "may".

Fixed here and in the next line.

> > ...
> > +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
> > +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
> > +official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
> > +restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
> > +that can be more easily debated.
> 
> It is a bit fuzzy what "other specific implementation" wants to
> convey.  A mere "RFC" is often an unfinished work-in-progress, and
> if the "other specific implementation" is different from it, then
> what it would be?  A minimum viable product?  A proof-of-concept?

Ack, will reword this.

> 
> All other parts did read very well.
> 
> Not that the above was unreadable, but just my reading hiccupped at
> around "other specific implementation".
> 
> Thanks.

[PATCH v4] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Josh Steadmon]

The Git project currently operates according to an informal
consensus-building process, which is currently described in the
SubmittingPatches document. However, that focuses on small/medium-scale
patch series. For larger-scale decisions, the process is not as well
described. Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to
help inform newcomers to the project.

This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to
decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to
describe how the project currently operates today.

Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
---

Changes in V4:
* Minor wording cleanups to be more emphatic and to clarify "other
  specific implementation" phrase.

Changes in V3:
* Squash in Junio's suggested patch to remove discussion of small-scale
  patch series.

Changes in V2:
* Split doc to treat patch series discussion as the general case, with
  larger discussions (with or without patches) as special situations.
* Add links to example discussions for certain situations
* Add link to contributor summit notes
* Add link to Code of Conduct doc
* Add justification for keeping discussion on-list
* Add paragraph about explicit negative consensus
* Minor reword of advice on when to CC experts
* Minor reword of doc intro to avoid indecisive text

Range-diff against v3:
1:  5446ca49e0 ! 1:  10f2179156 doc: describe the project's decision-making process
    @@ Commit message
         describe how the project currently operates today.
     
    -    Co-authored-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
    +    Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
     
      ## Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new) ##
     @@
    @@ Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new)
     +Larger Discussions (without patches)
     +------------------------------------
     +Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
    -+These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
    -+even a single large patch series, or they might be more open-ended,
    ++These may be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
    ++even a single large patch series, or they may be more open-ended,
     +policy-oriented discussions (examples:
     +link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust]
     +or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving submodule UX]).
    @@ Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt (new)
     +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
     +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
     +official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
    -+restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
    -+that can be more easily debated.
    ++restart discussion with an RFC patch series (such as a partial, unfinished
    ++implementation or proof of concept) that can be more easily debated.
     +
     +When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
     +proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,

 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Documentation/Makefile           |  1 +
 2 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..dbb4c1f569
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+Decision-Making Process in the Git Project
+==========================================
+
+Introduction
+------------
+This document describes the current decision-making process in the Git
+project. It is a descriptive rather than prescriptive doc; that is, we want to
+describe how things work in practice rather than explicitly recommending any
+particular process or changes to the current process.
+
+Here we document how the project makes decisions for discussions
+(with or without patches), in scale larger than an individual patch
+series (which is fully covered by the SubmittingPatches document).
+
+
+Larger Discussions (with patches)
+---------------------------------
+As with discussions on an individual patch series, starting a larger-scale
+discussion often begins by sending a patch or series to the list. This might
+take the form of an initial design doc, with implementation following in later
+iterations of the series (for example,
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/0169ce6fb9ccafc089b74ae406db0d1a8ff8ac65.1688165272.git.steadmon@google.com/[adding unit tests] or
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200420235310.94493-1-emilyshaffer@google.com/[config-based hooks]),
+or it might include a full implementation from the beginning.
+In either case, discussion progresses the same way for an individual patch series,
+until consensus is reached or the topic is dropped.
+
+
+Larger Discussions (without patches)
+------------------------------------
+Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
+These may be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
+even a single large patch series, or they may be more open-ended,
+policy-oriented discussions (examples:
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZZ77NQkSuiRxRDwt@nand.local/[introducing Rust]
+or link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/YHofmWcIAidkvJiD@google.com/[improving submodule UX]).
+In either case, discussion progresses as described above for general patch series.
+
+For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
+it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
+official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
+restart discussion with an RFC patch series (such as a partial, unfinished
+implementation or proof of concept) that can be more easily debated.
+
+When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
+proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,
+with help from others who were involved in the discussion, as
+needed.
+
+For decisions that require code changes, it is often the case that the original
+proposer will follow up with a patch series, although it is also common for
+other interested parties to provide an implementation (or parts of the
+implementation, for very large changes).
+
+For non-technical decisions such as community norms or processes, it is up to
+the community as a whole to implement and sustain agreed-upon changes.
+The project leadership committe (PLC) may help the implementation of
+policy decisions.
+
+
+Other Discussion Venues
+-----------------------
+Occasionally decision proposals are presented off-list, e.g. at the semi-regular
+Contributors' Summit. While higher-bandwidth face-to-face discussion is often
+useful for quickly reaching consensus among attendees, generally we expect to
+summarize the discussion in notes that can later be presented on-list. For an
+example, see the thread
+link:https://lore.kernel.org/git/AC2EB721-2979-43FD-922D-C5076A57F24B@jramsay.com.au/[Notes
+from Git Contributor Summit, Los Angeles (April 5, 2020)] by James Ramsay.
+
+We prefer that "official" discussion happens on the list so that the full
+community has opportunity to engage in discussion. This also means that the
+mailing list archives contain a more-or-less complete history of project
+discussions and decisions.
diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile
index 3f2383a12c..a04da672c6 100644
--- a/Documentation/Makefile
+++ b/Documentation/Makefile
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += howto/coordinate-embargoed-releases
 API_DOCS = $(patsubst %.txt,%,$(filter-out technical/api-index-skel.txt technical/api-index.txt, $(wildcard technical/api-*.txt)))
 SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS)
 
+TECH_DOCS += DecisionMaking
 TECH_DOCS += ReviewingGuidelines
 TECH_DOCS += MyFirstContribution
 TECH_DOCS += MyFirstObjectWalk

base-commit: 436d4e5b14df49870a897f64fe92c0ddc7017e4c
-- 
2.45.0.rc1.225.g2a3ae87e7f-goog

Re: [PATCH v4] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Junio C Hamano]

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

> The Git project currently operates according to an informal
> consensus-building process, which is currently described in the
> SubmittingPatches document. However, that focuses on small/medium-scale
> patch series. For larger-scale decisions, the process is not as well
> described. Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to
> help inform newcomers to the project.
>
> This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to
> decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to
> describe how the project currently operates today.
>
> Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
> ---
>
> Changes in V4:
> * Minor wording cleanups to be more emphatic and to clarify "other
>   specific implementation" phrase.

Thanks for an update.  I am myself undecided on the "explicit
recommendation?" question Patrick posed, but other than that this
iteration looked reasonable.

Queued.  Thanks.

Re: [PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Patrick Steinhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3037 bytes --]

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 09:40:02AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> >> +When consensus is reached that it is a good idea, the original
> >> +proposer is expected to coordinate the effort to make it happen,
> >> +with help from others who were involved in the discussion, as
> >> +needed.
> >
> > One thing I want to eventually propose is to go further here:
> > documenting the outcome of the discussion, regardless of whether we
> > decided for or against it, in a low-overhead format. This could for
> > example be a small paragraph in a "Documentation/Projects" file that
> > points to the on-list discussion together with a small summary of why
> > the decision was reached.
> 
> Having such a list certainly is handy; the problem is how to keep
> them current, though.

I try to somewhat tackle the issue by explicitly saying that the format
should be low-overhead. But that of course won't fully make the problem
go away, we still need to make sure that it's getting updated somewhat
regularly.

That being said, I don't think it'll be all that often that we need to
add new items to the list. We don't have a ton of large ongoing projects
in our codebase. I'd claim that we can rather measure the cadence of
such projects in years rather than months. So we might get away with a
"best effort" approach to keep it up-to-date.

> > I don't think that this change needs to be part of your patch though, as
> > your intent is only to document processes as they work right now. But I
> > wanted to bring this up regardless as a foreshadowing.
> 
> Yup, I agree that it is probably better left out of the scope for
> now.
> 
> If we are in the "expressing wish" mode, another thing we might find
> it useful, if such a thing existed, is a list of principles for
> designing new things.  E.g., not changing an established behaviour
> to prioritize protecting existing users' muscle memory over whims of
> the day by folks who haven't had enough time to familialize with it.
> E.g., the plumbing output is sacred but the Porcelain output is
> subject to change to improve human-user experience with coloring
> and pagination, etc.

Yes, I very much agree. One of these principles that I want to discuss
soonish is the design of our CLI. I think we would benefit if we had a
set of guidelines that show what our ideal UI should look like. Many of
our older commands may not fit into such a UI design, as I think that it
has evolved since the inception of Git, and that's fine. But starting to
think about the bigger picture here and where we want to go may be quite
helpful overall. It would make it a ton easier for folks to argue based
on established and documented principles instead of requiring handwavy
gut feeling.

That's only one part though where we may want to lay out our principles,
I'm sure there are others. But I'm throttling my push for more structure
a bit, and rather want to lead one discussion after the other.

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v4] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Patrick Steinhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1288 bytes --]

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:12:02PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:
> 
> > The Git project currently operates according to an informal
> > consensus-building process, which is currently described in the
> > SubmittingPatches document. However, that focuses on small/medium-scale
> > patch series. For larger-scale decisions, the process is not as well
> > described. Document what to expect so that we have something concrete to
> > help inform newcomers to the project.
> >
> > This document explicitly does not aim to impose a formal process to
> > decision-making, nor to change pre-existing norms. Its only aim is to
> > describe how the project currently operates today.
> >
> > Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in V4:
> > * Minor wording cleanups to be more emphatic and to clarify "other
> >   specific implementation" phrase.
> 
> Thanks for an update.  I am myself undecided on the "explicit
> recommendation?" question Patrick posed, but other than that this
> iteration looked reasonable.
> 
> Queued.  Thanks.

I think the current version is good enough, we can still iterate on it
as needed. Thanks!

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]