> > One example is we require a CEP to have a Shepherd that is a PMC member
This should be revised from "PMC member" to "committer" On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:12 AM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > With regards to CEPs, I personally don't see any value in voting to > start > > one. > > > > Agree with this, and I'd go even further - requiring a vote in order to > > propose an idea runs so counter to the idea of a CEP that it would > default > > the purpose of even having them. The CEP is the _proposal_ for a change > > that gets fleshed out enough so people can understand the idea and _then_ > > vote on it, not the other way around. > > > Totally agree that CEPs should be as light-weight as possible, and with the > sentiments above. But would also like to keep the discussion open to > encourage and include as many voices as possible. > > My _questioning_ is around the value in "initial exposure and discussion". > It is implied already that there is lazy consensus in starting a CEP, and > that starting a CEP is more than just an initial proposal of an idea. One > example is we require a CEP to have a Shepherd that is a PMC member. > Encouraging a vote, or better-yet keeping it light-weight: an initial > DISCUSS thread as early as possible in the CEP lifecycle does come with > value. From openly calling out for a Shepherd, to allowing the more > experienced community members to add their insight (without having to get > formally involved in it), there's potential value in encouraging such > open-mode opening discussion early on (versus the cost of additional > process). > > Really interested in hearing from folk from other communities and projects > that do CEP/CIP and how their lifecycle through the process works and what > they have learnt. >
