Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Open Definition versioning: cleaner approval process, overall revisions #130

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: gh-pages
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Open Definition versioning: cleaner approval process, overall revisions #130

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e288388
cleaner approval process, overall revisions
wolftune Oct 9, 2015
3b2bd0b
substantial fixes, issues > concerns, clarity
wolftune Nov 6, 2015
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
23 changes: 15 additions & 8 deletions source/open-definition-revision-process-dev.markdown
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,19 +2,26 @@
Definition Revision Approval Process _- draft_
====================================

1. Issues with the current Open Definition are identified. The Open Definition community will disucss on the mailing list and decide which issues are to be dealt with in the next release reach consensus on each of these issues.
1. Concerns about the current Open Definition are identified via general discussion on the mailing list or discuss.okfn.org forum.

2. A new draft document is started. Chair notifies the list and other relevant fora that a new draft document has been started summarizing the issues that the upcoming release is to address and inviting participation.
2. The Advisory Council will then decide which concerns to dealt with for the next release.

3. Issues with the current Open Definition are identified. The Open Definition community will discuss on the mailing list and decide which issues are to be dealt with in the next release reach consensus on each of these issues. The draft document is updated to relfect current consensus.
3. A new draft document is started.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note: this was a totally redundant item to item 1, like it was just a typo when someone moved it and forgot to delete the old lines or something.


4. The Open Definition Advisory Council chair will summarize the consensus to the Advisory Council on the mailing list and to other relevant fora, okfn-discuss at a minimum.
4. Chair notifies the list and other relevant fora that a new draft document has been started summarizing the selected concerns and inviting participation.

5. If over next two weeks issues are raised which indicate a different consensus or further discussion needed, chair will step process back to step 2 or 3 as appropriate. If no further issues are raised, the chair notifies the list and other relevant fora that the draft is ready for voting, establishing a release candidate, and informing contributors that only typo corrections will be accepted from this point forward.
5. Along with discussion, people submit pull requests to the draft until it seems to reflect current consensus.

6. If over next two weeks issues are raised which indicate the release candidate is not acceptable, chair will step process back to step 2. If no further issues are raised, the chair notifies the list and other relevant fora that a vote will occur within one week.
6. With all of the selected concerns settled, the Open Definition Advisory Council chair will summarize the consensus to the Advisory Council on the mailing list and to other relevant fora, okfn-discuss at a minimum. If only some concerns seem to be reaching consensus, the scope may be narrowed and remaining concerns delayed until a later revision.

7. Chair calls for formal approval of release candidate by Advisory Council on mailing list.
7. If, over next two weeks, concerns are raised which indicate a different consensus or further discussion needed, chair will return to prior steps as appropriate. If no further concerns are raised, the chair holds a vote on the OD list to accept the current draft as a release candidate.

8. If after two weeks at least three Advisory Council members approve the consensus summary on-list, and at least 75% of Advisory Council members expressing an opinion on the summary if any dissent, the website will be updated, and announcements made to public and wider lists as appropriate. Wider lists includes the okfn-discuss@lists.okfn.org and local@lists.okfn.org lists. If the motion does not pass the chair notifies the list and steps the process back to step 2.
8. If a release candidate vote is successful, the chair will announce the release candidate to all relevant outlets including the general discussion lists and fora.

9. If, over the next two weeks, concerns besides typo corrections are raised that relate to the scope of this release, the chair will step process back to step 3. If no such concerns are raised, the chair notifies the list and other relevant fora that a final vote will occur within one week.

10. Chair calls for formal approval of release candidate by Advisory Council on mailing list.

11. After two weeks, the release candidate becomes final given at least 3 votes of approval and at least 75% approval from all votes from Council members. If the motion does not pass, the chair notifies the list and steps the process back as needed.

12. The website will be updated, and announcements made to public and wider lists as appropriate. Wider lists includes the okfn-discuss@lists.okfn.org and local@lists.okfn.org lists.