Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:48:57 +0000 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk>, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com>, Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FCP-0101: Deprecating most 10/100 Ethernet drivers Message-ID: <20181024154857.GB15429@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <201810241354.w9ODs1MD028342@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <20181024134153.GC3125@lonesome.com> <201810241354.w9ODs1MD028342@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--GID0FwUMdk1T2AWN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 06:54:01AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 05:19:33AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > And I have read case law that boiled down to the presents vs absence > > > of a comma > >=20 > > If we are now going to evaluate all proposed changes to FreeBSD on the > > same rigid principles as the US legal system, I'm done. >=20 > I do not think "all" is in scope here, > but I do feel should excercise care about procedure. > And FYI, the case law above I am pretty sure was not US. >=20 > I also believe that what is at issue here can be fixed > rather easily without ever going down the minor vs major > slippery slope by some rather simple changes to order > of events and careful steps. >=20 > Warner came very close, I think he just applied his correct > "fix" to 1/2 of the problem. >=20 > There is the stage where the FCP is before core being voted > on, and there is the stage that the FCP has been approved. > He only addressed 1 of those, and he did so by allowing core > to trivially modify the document during the voting process, > and I am actually fine with that idea, its good, it is what > should be allowed. I trust core to know what is minor vs > major. >=20 > BUTT it still does not cover the issue of the author/submitter > modifying the document while it is in core being reviewed and > possibly modified. I have issue with that. It is very hard > to vote/formally review on something that is fluid. > I have not been asked to trust these people with the trust I > give core, so I would like to remove that. There are technical measures in place that do much of this already. Right now, authors can't directly change the documents (unless they are repo admins which means core and former core members in practice). We require that pull requests be reviewed before they are merged and random people don't have commit access. We could make the restriction to core members or core members and fcp-editors explicit if that was desirable. > We could add that once the document is submitted to core > any change to it between submitting and vote by core requires > core to be involved, even if it is simply an ack of a change > has been made to what was submitted. I agree. We'll need to think on how best to do this. -- Brooks --GID0FwUMdk1T2AWN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJb0JRpAAoJEKzQXbSebgfAv6EH/j7y74E12k7JrbntothAjhfl 1u1bRpib5ZoIE5nCeCS6l+ZqHvkJIxvmbqm9ksBsLG36GFbUOBHMnvY43KCHq87r NOQ4LoncmDljiDnakMALcf7qyMiWLjHBxod0AtUrBE+Wof9qB/kiJ3MWmt6ou11W nuXhhiJsxR4bTAFoBlP+91X0BgcNomUyQLX537hEzgw4jI7lfp3liw00T9enWAV+ NAU9smJhXuUPca2hAcDtcPkpQG3tVweQKLGSWrr9HDxb2FQUNZVHzwccEJwg1sc3 LgUvjJfrOArCUvaZLzopgbMBuZbx/vnJSEqQySnRihEk00JYR42mp7iqNv22DRc= =Pfsi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GID0FwUMdk1T2AWN--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20181024154857.GB15429>