On Wed, 13 Dec 2023, dpsmith.dev wrote:
> While this survey may have been released with the best of intentions, I can't
> help but to find it poorly conceived. Banning words, whether in general or for
> a specific instance, is not something to be taken lightly via "informal vote",
> and in my humbl
On 12/1/23 05:27, George Dunlap wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:28 PM Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
Hi all,
This vote is in the context of this thread:
https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=169213351810075
To add slightly more context.
The issue here is more than a simple "should we use the word
Hi David,
I appreciate your concerns, and I agree that the community like any other
open source project has room for improvement.
It's great to hear that you want to contribute and we're trying to make
this easier for all within the project. As such, we are in the process of
setting up a TAB to he
On Fri, 2023-12-01 at 10:27 +, George Dunlap wrote:
>
> FWIW I think a "five-point survey" would probably have been somewhat better:
>
> Regarding the review insisting that the word "broken" be removed from
> the updated documentation to the old hypercall:
(✔) I think this sort of enforcemen
Hi all,
As we haven't yet reached a consensus, let's see what the informal vote
looks like in the community by the end of the week.
Since the scope and context have changed slightly, anonymous voting is
permitted and I will be counting all votes made after Dec 4th. Please only
vote once.
Should y
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023, George Dunlap wrote:
> And how do we give people practical options to respond to a maintainer
> who they think is being "picky"
If a maintainer is too picky the contributor and the other maintainers
should say that the patch is good enough in their view. If the
maintainers disa
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:16 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
> > I am in favor on moving faster and nitpicking less. Also, Andy put the
> > effort to produce the patch so he should have the default choice in the
> > wording. If the choice is taking the patch as is or rejecting it, I
> > would take it as is.
On 01.12.2023 22:44, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Replying here on a couple of different people on this thread.
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>> I think this form is bad and is not helpful.
>
> I agree with Tamas and (also Jan) that this form is not helpful.
>
>
> On Fri, 1
On 04.12.2023 06:02, Kelly Choi wrote:
> In the specific example above, it's difficult in the sense that informal
> voting wasn't officially in the governance yet when the feedback was
> raised. What I would recommend in this instance is that if George and
> others feel very strongly about removing
Hi everyone,
Thank you for your feedback.
Firstly, let me apologise if I have caused confusion with the form. It was
not intended to be a one answer fits all within the community. Rather, it
was created to give community members an option to share how they feel
about the term, with the example me
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:44 PM Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> By the informal
> voting, we have 3 against "broken" and 2 in favor (not 1 as George wrote
> as Andrew's vote counts too).
Just to clarify: The opinions on that thread (if you include all
versions of the series) were:
Andy, Daniel for ke
Replying here on a couple of different people on this thread.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> I think this form is bad and is not helpful.
I agree with Tamas and (also Jan) that this form is not helpful.
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023, George Dunlap wrote:
> If most people in the community
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:28 PM Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This vote is in the context of this thread:
> https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=169213351810075
To add slightly more context.
The issue here is more than a simple "should we use the word broken or
not". We already have a
Hi Stefano,
On 30/11/2023 22:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Hi all,
This vote is in the context of this thread:
https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=169213351810075
Thanks for providing the context + CCing committers.
First I will echo what Jan said and mention that providing context to
the vote
On 30.11.2023 23:57, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> I think this form is bad and is not helpful. We ought to be able to
> recommend an alternative term beside "broken" and "deprecated". I
> would not use the term broken in this context but that also doesn't
> mean we shouldn't use it in any context. But
Hi all,
I think this form is bad and is not helpful. We ought to be able to
recommend an alternative term beside "broken" and "deprecated". I
would not use the term broken in this context but that also doesn't
mean we shouldn't use it in any context. But also in this context
deprecated is not the r
Hi all,
This vote is in the context of this thread:
https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=169213351810075
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023, Kelly Choi wrote:
> Hi all,
> There have been a few discussions about how we use documentation wording
> within the community. Whilst there are differences in opinions and
Hi all,
There have been a few discussions about how we use documentation wording
within the community. Whilst there are differences in opinions and
perceptions of the definition, it would be helpful to see a wider consensus
of how we feel.
*Discussion: Should we use the term 'broken' in our docum
18 matches
Mail list logo
