geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] RFC 0: Lightweight RFC Process
Date Mon, 15 Jul 2019 23:52:58 GMT
@Udo

I like both of your suggestions. Most of the proposals that I put in
"Dropped" still seemed like good ideas, perhaps even things we'd already
agreed to on the mailing list, but hadn't seen any recent development.

If no one objects, I'll go ahead and rename Active->Completed and
Dropped->Icebox. Should we change the name of the state in the Lightweight
RFC Process
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Lightweight+RFC+Process>?

-Dan

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <udo@apache.org> wrote:

> @Dan,
>
> Thank you for your first attempt at this.
>
> Maybe we should be a rename "Active" to "Completed". "Active" to me
> means that we are currently working on them, rather having completed
> them. I don't view these proposals as features that can be toggled
> on/off (or active/inactive).
>
> Also, I disagree with the approach that proposals that are not actively
> worked on are "Dropped". Which in itself is incorrect as well. Maybe
> there should be an "Icebox" area, that lists a set of proposals that
> have not yet been approved, but also not yet rejected.
>
> I think it is ok to have an "Icebox" of proposals that lists areas of
> improvement we want to target, but as of yet, no concrete proposal has
> yet been submitted. Modularity comes to mind. It is not that we don't
> want to do it, it is just that there is no proposal that has been
> accepted/completed.
>
> --Udo
>
> On 7/12/19 12:57, Dan Smith wrote:
> > Following up on this, I took a stab at organizing our old proposals into
> > the buckets on the wiki. We now have:
> >
> > Under Discussion - Draft and In Discussion proposals
> > In Development - proposals under active development
> > Active - Proposals that are completely implemented
> > Dropped - Proposals that were not approved or development stalled out.
> >
> > If I moved your proposal to "Dropped" erroneously, please feel free to
> move
> > it back! I moved things there that did not appear to have been
> implemented
> > or have any recent activity.
> >
> > I put a few things in "Unknown State." If you know what state these
> > proposals are in, please move them!
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Project+Proposals+and+Specifications
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:20 AM Alexander Murmann <ajmurmann@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Given discussion here and previous discussion on the PR, I consider this
> >> proposal approved and updated its state accordingly.
> >>
> >> I also incorporated Dan's suggestion of moving deprecated proposals and
> >> added a reference to the new process at the top of the Project Proposals
> >> and Specifications page
> >> <
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Project+Proposals+and+Specifications
> >> .
> >>
> >> Thank you all for you great feedback throughout this process!
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:07 AM Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Will moving the page around on the wiki result in dead links to the
> >> draft
> >>>> version?
> >>>>
> >>> No. If you use the share button in the wiki, you get a permanent link
> to
> >>> the page. Even if you just copy the URL from the address bar it doesn't
> >>> include the folder the page is in.
> >>>
> >>> -Dan
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alexander J. Murmann
> >> (650) 283-1933
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message