Updating membership_policy to inc removal of reviewer/approvers/chairs #365
Conversation
…rs and approvers Signed-off-by: Andrew Burden <[email protected]>
kubevirt-bot
added
do-not-merge/hold
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| When a SIG or WG Chair or Subproject Lead needs to step down from their position, it is expected that they work with the SIG/Subproject/WG to identify and mentor a willing candidate to grow into the role. | ||
| They should then open a PR to replace them in [sigs.yaml], and move themselves to emeritus status (if applicable). | ||
|
|
||
| A reviewer/approver/chair/lead may also be demoted or removed from their role if they are inactive in their area for 6 months or more. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we also should think about the case of a "vanishing" person and their replacement. In that case there's no candidate, so the impacted group or the community should select one.
This could happen maybe by approaching the candidate - either by maintainers of the affected group or the project maintainers in the worst case - and then suggesting them to the group or community in a PR against the sigs.yaml. A quorum of people with authority should then be enough to accept the suggestion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1.
In general I like the idea of having an "escape hatch" to such defined policies. After all, it makes sense that due to circumstances sometimes someone will vanish with no notice and won't have the time to fulfill this process or even communicate the situation. In such a scenario, I would say that if the majority of SIG chairs vote to remove them because they know they won't be active for the near future, there is no need to wait for 6 months just to get the "proof" of inactiveness.
No policy can replace common sense 100%, but IMO is mostly there to serve as a general guideline.
kubevirt-bot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
PR needs rebase. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
aburdenthehand
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
Removing hold as #361 has merged |
|
Added a small comment above, but in general looks great to me. |
What this PR does / why we need it:
Adds guidelines for removing/demoting reviewers/approvers/chairs/leads. Primarily this makes the recommendation that they should step down of their own accord and remove themselves; when that does not happen, inactivity of 6 months or more can trigger their removal.
The need for this became apparent during #329
/hold because it is dependent on #361 as the tool to confirm inactivity.
@dhiller @EdDev @vladikr
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #