From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.128.43 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792663310; b=G6yukAUHMoGhwsTtuAilaw9QxafMKgSLdo0dGN4fiB53LwYgNi8InswUvSxFgUSMPjS3 TvHWAYEfv/yprFbX2+tOrZIurJHIHrn1ASyHkcHlQ/pRWxJvgKcEJEFgalGflTB0oMRUN 9IyK51dl8nWQQarq6Y3wKUs1EBjvk1aDd9dJM+cUxjVD3l6HT6bk1gMaCgoBu4gd24O7Z hQgk3Re4INA1rE2MNfATrdYeKKokmQncY0Z3QrkJA4byMgv6dws+hoBpZZ49b494l1oYj qQgESy0qLPEwnEFOR84qwrqbpgd3ID0XFDJRHfB8TQJLt0XAhn0SJevylo7204nrVnA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792663310; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:X-Google-DKIM-Signature: X-Forwarded-Encrypted:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Gm-Gg:X-Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:User-Agent:Reply-To:Subject:To: References:Content-Language:From:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=YyFfc4Lgt/geZER9WdJ1qu78uRRn8J3ELhxdu1Yrq5A=; b=QW0RiGb8X7C/baHWhiNpCbzsKxUQ+Gcsx04tdH/Bd1WPsofR65vian9bG1GxSbpa8hr1 D285l4nasspw+vAuBSLxIKv1O5bQc+Rn8WkXujnZnbP2QqTBCFUuksAXH9RyRf7jGX4+E jVPkrp+BCB6rmf1DtuN2HZ7E83YIYuwbMBg1dxIw+JOGCpw69kjcRGmRe2Kj+3EyhiQq+ Pr/05gmqxaXN4iZwFFkcmJftkmohIKZj8ql1GNZCTsa5Etd3NpP8YjbgqXc7ai7O7LMfJ 3iky7zjeEZWPERu98du0BQ2GJZy/Ah/C5/UjNi8Fm9BEQg8W0rVSF2CZ2DlCJPrJRUA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20251104 header.b=rY6YqQCV; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=209.85.128.43 Received: from mail-wm1-f43.google.com (mail-wm1-f43.google.com [209.85.128.43]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F2FA606A319 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 10:01:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 8F2FA606A319 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20251104 header.b=rY6YqQCV Received: by mail-wm1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a209a7fd1bso1814165e9.1 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 03:01:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1792663308; x=1793268108; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:to:subject:reply-to:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to:content-type; bh=YyFfc4Lgt/geZER9WdJ1qu78uRRn8J3ELhxdu1Yrq5A=; b=rY6YqQCVP++4vBT/WWNMKtS9Csm3PRSqvmdhS7u62nFsZJvjFfy4a4kgl2wzf0eM6r LEG6AUXRrXyQ4xl7kkSPNPu7yHgpCiDQYmWwR+P7s4G4KoNqOOnUv3kpTiQ/HLbx412D AYf5mzE3wLE2IK7r3Qn6yH0jdlBsnW6dA2P8IMN7Bn8IC+LmJkTQWtgnpncRagkSDnvC 1OrHUrnB/DFC22o5zlQJGyIJatKAZ3s43bPS2shwIFascT1WKDeboUlUSVsSdcaPvtZF WJ0vVULM/WNrovR35VqawMkMNOblXLr8x2CJzuNJUC4tuvqi2/kSXAj4uw9sEvxmA/B5 UrWA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1792663308; x=1793268108; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:to:subject:reply-to:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=YyFfc4Lgt/geZER9WdJ1qu78uRRn8J3ELhxdu1Yrq5A=; b=SVAznT9ViU5+6s4+D6n2aprdNolMPwuCVZ93kmTWQebPAX3lK9bHLlusTjRZIPL0NF BlYTfGzEXAKB9LQSFHa4MlbFxxWZhMWLQ6WpyIA04gq2W3VnKdPpxJJV9b5BNWuDFGc+ xLUdoa9srmpyXpuPazocMTMZLhAhIwT3cCqaPbeAnRgO/L1hGV6huCyNtlq8YdhoHbeV HE+S1j4kn0u/wVL9Wz/EL8QIoTyck9C7EVGPTLA5ue1wdRRCBBQHxL0OtJUIrr93QQXJ 6qypgUD+Ys+dG5GkDL25IaQhIBIQgoygJkA48n1458/1aSQJjmW1torG7uuMEBdZ4moZ pQcg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBxfe39jkBTdL7P1K+8j1XaPyyMOGezuPxXHvzL05BQYB/aqtwp9RoihlHOYmWNIH2Fq0ss=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYKwX0wgDK6RV/d6hyyXgn/kcd+3cANlbRre+G0YIbrAznFMNZPR FODO5PixF7EiJoDDtn7FRK6NeADMYNBAv04cuE1cI2t6mzdE5lgaQeQ/ X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou3Hl6oDtUGFN/yyqdtivkxxkEjWRdMaDe+NHN2aARV9q8CSbGfwxjjwYYKopsv 8gzqt8u/5LFv54Vdk7AZ4YQM9xMDsBYv875YR1zNV65zLIC710utamov67/lcqAwGshvF6ZuioL GDz9ln5K/BdYvBbLtwPQgJdmwMcSdL85TIpcHqCGW8zrptFLgxY95Em4DIliA+FAkreuRLauZqv TKivCOEooESi7x9BWTLkgYNeHNYqzHP335aCZWcKCtH8/wusKJS7Uvw4JNrEN6t5eNsJwzdIC+T vzPSRv61FdUqJ58d0kxOm4g1H3EJdL/msq9plz1bYACsDsBkkTPSDsIsAdbIu+W/dZJxkn5yPrN H0QpCZhlvJwQUn4QcetbJu839kM5oHVFLDJb7bHLeAjJ36FfrGU06fMoT5wfvEW8eD958TGgI33 nZYLmduLGnjozTx5kFfbeMLpK9FY+qUGIEs42dVnDpFXzbJqCwa3dxEq8bWZQNCNDBnf9blOAEG 2WuObrfFcsYbaBW1pQ4Wgoh48TfZWNde1AOmMHD1Qe3VJrWnJVX0wis+1QtgbHy7NK6Ot9yUFia C1kvDo0mPlXR8mNuuhBjNy/xTfyhb5PLkg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:a204:b0:4a1:e9c2:6c84 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a1fdd2c140mr61831975e9.18.1792663307623; Thu, 22 Oct 2026 03:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a0a:ef40:724:6601:f3ff:aebc:61f8:d91f? ([2a0a:ef40:724:6601:f3ff:aebc:61f8:d91f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4a207b29276sm68614695e9.6.2026.10.22.03.01.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Oct 2026 03:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 11:01:44 +0100 X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Reply-To: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: propose community voting process To: Emily Shaffer , git@vger.kernel.org References: <20261021200341.378978-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Phillip Wood In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Emily Thanks for working on this On 21/10/2026 21:05, Emily Shaffer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 1:03 PM Emily Shaffer wrote: >> >> +Voting Eligibility >> +------------------ >> + >> +Votes are welcome from contributors who have authored a commit which has been >> +merged to next, or who have provided 2 or more code reviews, and who have not >> +been banned from participation in the project. All eligible contributor votes >> +are weighed equally, regardless of the overall number of contributions they >> +have landed. >> + >> +To prevent dogpiling, contributions are only eligible for a given vote if they >> +landed before the beginning of the voting process (the kickoff email mentioned >> +above). That is, the code reviews must have been sent or the patch must have >> +been accepted before the initial email is sent. The intention is to ensure the >> +mailing list isn't spammed with low-quality reviews during the voting process >> +solely to increase the number of eligible voters on one side of the issue. > > The specifics of this eligibility rule can change a little. I'm trying > to figure a balance between a few principles: > * Not all contributions are code (e.g. community moderation is > contribution but a moderator may never send a patch). I think in the > Git project we have less issue with that, because we don't have a > community moderator unless we're counting the mods in the low-traffic > Discord, and I believe all of those mods have code or review > contributions anyways. I agree we want to include those who contribute more widely, but I think restricting the criteria to contributions on the mailing list where the development of git takes place and the impact of any decision will be felt the most is a reasonable place to draw the line. I'm not sure how easy it is going to be to count reviews - does posting "LGTM" count or do we want a more substantial contribution? Should verified bug reports count? - that's also a useful contribution to the project. I agree with Junio that we should count patch series, rather than individual patches and I think it would be easier to measure when they're merged to master rather than next. > * Avoiding dogpiling. This is my biggest fear, Git is a very > well-known project and there will be a lot of big opinions on the open > internet once people know we're voting on this policy. I want us to > measure the opinions of those who participate in the project, not the > opinions of random passers-by. I agree this is important. Before a vote is proposed it is likely that there will be some (possibly contentious) discussion on the list so I wonder if we should require that eligible contributions are made at least a month before the first draft of a proposal is posted. Junio's suggestion that we restrict eligibility to released code has a similar effect but I'm not sure how that would work for non code contributions. I also think it would be sensible to restrict eligibility to the current set of active contributors, who will have to live with the consequences of the decision, by requiring eligible contributions to have been made in the previous two years. I have historic contributions in a couple of projects that I'm not active in anymore and I would not expect to be able to influence an decisions those projects make now. > * Easy (scriptable) eligibility determination. If we start to explore > other types of contribution, like user support in non-mailing-list > platforms, it becomes really difficult to send a ballot to everyone > who's supposed to get one. I think this is tricky even for mailing list contributions, as I said above what constitutes a useful review? I'm afraid I don't have any useful suggestions. (It would be interesting to see if an LLM can usefully classify the emails on the list but I don't think we want to be using an LLM determining eligibility to vote on a proposal about whether to accept AI!) Thanks Phillip >> diff --git a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.adoc b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.adoc >> index b43c472ae5..c08fb7abd5 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/DecisionMaking.adoc >> +++ b/Documentation/DecisionMaking.adoc >> @@ -72,3 +72,9 @@ 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. >> + >> +Formal Voting >> +------------- >> +When a decision cannot be reached by general consensus or compromise, a formal >> +vote may be called. See link:CommunityVoting.adoc[Community Voting] for details >> +of this process. >> diff --git a/Documentation/Makefile b/Documentation/Makefile >> index f8dea4b395..314b8dc8f5 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/Makefile >> +++ b/Documentation/Makefile >> @@ -113,6 +113,7 @@ SP_ARTICLES += $(API_DOCS) >> >> TECH_DOCS += BreakingChanges >> TECH_DOCS += DecisionMaking >> +TECH_DOCS += CommunityVoting >> TECH_DOCS += ReviewingGuidelines >> TECH_DOCS += MyFirstContribution >> TECH_DOCS += MyFirstObjectWalk >> -- >> 2.56.0.rc1.315.gc6ed9934b7-goog >> >