From r.pickhardt at googlemail.com Tue Nov 27 07:00:05 2018 From: r.pickhardt at googlemail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9_Pickhardt?=) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:00:05 +0100 Subject: [Lightning-dev] [META] Organization of 1.1 Spec Effort In-Reply-To: References: <878t1f5sg2.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: Hey Rusty, No matter how we agree for the process I suggest to create a wiki page on which we make it transparent and link to it from README.md. The current process was new to me and I think one cannot expect newcomers to read through the entire Mailinglist. As soon as we have an agreement I can create this PR together with more useful information for newcomers. Best regards Rene Am Di., 27. Nov. 2018, 01:13 hat Matt Corallo geschrieben: > +100 for IRC meetings, though, really, I'd much much stronger prefer > substantive discussion happen on GitHub or the mailing list. Doing > finalization in a live meeting is really unfair to those who can't find the > time to attend regularly (or happen to miss the one where that thing was > discussed that they care about). > > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 18:29, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > As you may know, for 1.0 spec we had a biweekly Google Hangout, > > at 5:30am Adelaide time (Monday 19:00 UTC, or 20:00 UTC Q3/4). You can > > see the minutes of all meetings here: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oU4wxzGsYd0T084rTXJbedb7Gvdtj4ax638nMkYUmco > > > > The current process rules are: > > > > 1. Any substantive spec change requires unanimous approval at the > > meeting before application. > > 2. Any implementation changes generally require two interoperable > > implementations before they are considered final. > > 3. "typo, formatting and spelling" fixes which can be applied after two > > acks without a meeting necessary. > > > > It's time to revisit this as we approach 1.1: > > > > 1. Should we move to an IRC meeting? Bitcoin development does this. > > It's more inclusive, and better recorded. But it can be > > lower-bandwidth. > > > > 2. Should we have a more formal approval method for PRs, eg. a > > "CONSENSUS:YES" tag we apply once we have acks from two teams and no > > Naks, then a meeting to review consensus, followed by "FINAL" tag and > > commit the next meeting? That gives you at least two weeks to > > comment on the final draft. > > > > Side note: I've added milestones to PRs as 1.0/1.1; I'm hoping to clear > > all 1.0 PRs this week for tagging in the next meeting, then we can start > > on 1.1 commits. > > > > Thanks! > > Rusty. > > _______________________________________________ > > Lightning-dev mailing list > > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: