Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Document quorum required in order to merge PRs - #26
Conversation
My only concern is that working on something and then not reaching the quorum after working, maybe a lot, might not be good to incentive contributions. Could the possibility to reach the quorum upfront be also considered? I mean as a ticket with an issue/improvement instead of after the PR landed. Does this make any sense? |
bmeck
commented
Feb 14, 2018
@WebReflection I think we could make an exception for bug fixes or editorial tweaks, but probably not a general case of approving a PR before the PR is finished. |
WebReflection
commented
Feb 14, 2018
fair enough |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
bmeck
commented
Feb 14, 2018
@ljharb since we talked about observers in the meeting and were noting that observers were not affecting quorum I assume they would not be counted. |
MylesBorins
commented
Feb 15, 2018
@ljharb would you like to open a follow up PR defining |
MylesBorins
commented
Feb 15, 2018
Should we include a note about fast tracking doc fixes or errata? |
I'm +1 on including said note - I don't think we should wait the "up to 2 weeks" for things that don't constitute of actual design decisions. |
giltayar
commented
Feb 15, 2018
LGTM |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
manekinekko
commented
Feb 15, 2018
LGTM |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
bmeck
commented
Feb 15, 2018
@MylesBorins@benjamingr I have added the errata and editorial exception. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
MylesBorins
commented
Feb 15, 2018
@bmeck do you think we should move this into a |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
As was discussed in the last meeting all members that did not fill out the availability doodle have been moved to observer status. Observers are not counted toward quorum and do not get to vote Refs: #26
As was discussed in the last meeting all members that did not fill out the availability doodle have been moved to observer status. Observers are not counted toward quorum and do not get to vote Refs: #8 (comment) Refs: #26
bmeck
commented
Feb 19, 2018
@MylesBorins we can put it wherever, but it only is telling how members should act not how contributions should be made. I think a link might be better than moving this talk about how members act into a CONTRIBUTING document that focuses on how to makea PR. -0 to moving it, but +0 on linking from contributing guidelines. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Per: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17T8ZeF2mUPffiDvulqd_HqD_JrTNaf8ch2dFT1hMfD0/edit?disco=AAAABp_P_B0