Skip to content

doc: remove confusing reference in governance doc #9073

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
Trott wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

doc: remove confusing reference in governance doc #9073

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7b6deb1
doc: remove confusing reference in governance doc
Trott Oct 13, 2016
b8b9cdb
squash: explain consensus
Trott Oct 14, 2016
70aadbd
squash: hyphenate for clarity
Trott Oct 14, 2016
8bf88a9
squash: clarifications
Trott Oct 14, 2016
99553ff
nit: punctuation/capitalization
Trott Oct 19, 2016
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
squash: hyphenate for clarity
  • Loading branch information
@Trott
Trott committed Oct 14, 2016
commit 70aadbd7d4ad8323d68ecf44d58b95c93a0e16b7
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion GOVERNANCE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ If there is disagreement among Collaborators about whether a proposed change
should be accepted, then the change may not be accepted unless:
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@thefourtheye thefourtheye Oct 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this sound okay? I am finding it very difficult to understand the double negatives and the meaning of this sentence

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@Trott Trott Oct 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It can probably be improved. Let me try to revise it...

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@Trott Trott Oct 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would this be better?

If one or more Collaborators oppose a proposed change, then the change can not
be accepted unless:


* discussion and/or additional changes result in no Collaborators objecting to
the change; previously objecting Collaborators do not necessarily have to
the change; previously-objecting Collaborators do not necessarily have to
sign-off on the change, but they should not be opposed to it
* the change is escalated to the CTC and the CTC approves the change; this
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@thefourtheye thefourtheye Oct 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What would be considered as approval by CTC? I mean any of the CTC signs off or more than one?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@Trott Trott Oct 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess for something as significant as resolving an impasse on a controversial change, we should require a vote. I'll update the text to say that. We can always change the rules if that turns out to be onerous. But it seems that this comes up relatively infrequently.

should be used only after other options (especially discussion among
Expand Down