New Pull Request Discussion section in Governance chapter.

[DavidSagan]

New Pull Request Discussion section in Governance chapter.

[cemitch99]

Suspect this PR would benefit from discussion with the technical committee or the larger group.

[ax3l]

Maybe one small detail we should discuss:
For an open PR, would a maintainer need to refresh their concern every two weeks if the PR author refuses to fix it? 😅

last Q

[DavidSagan]

Maybe one small detail we should discuss: For an open PR, would a maintainer need to refresh their concern every two weeks if the PR author refuses to fix it? 😅

I don't know what is meant by "maintainer" here. In any case, the proposed change does not concern the situation where someone has raised an issue and that issue is not addressed. In this case, the issue needs to be addressed before consideration whether to merge. There are no time limits here. And I put in a clarification on this in the PR.

[EZoni]

Maybe one small detail we should discuss: For an open PR, would a maintainer need to refresh their concern every two weeks if the PR author refuses to fix it? 😅

I don't know what is meant by "maintainer" here. In any case, the proposed change does not concern the situation where someone has raised an issue and that issue is not addressed. In this case, the issue needs to be addressed before consideration whether to merge. There are no time limits here. And I put in a clarification on this in the PR.

On the maintainer question, my guess is that it meant the members of the PALS technical committee https://github.com/orgs/pals-project/teams/pals-technical-committee.

[EZoni]

For an open PR, would a maintainer need to refresh their concern every two weeks if the PR author refuses to fix it? 😅

And I think the hidden question here may be, how do two maintainers (the reviewer and the PR author) come to an agreement if they disagree on how to move forward with regard to a specific change? The question is also valid for the case where the PR author is a regular contributor (i.e., not a maintainer), but I think it is more difficult to answer in the first case where both parties are maintainers. In fact there may be no "governance" (i.e., policy) answer to this question.

[DavidSagan]

For an open PR, would a maintainer need to refresh their concern every two weeks if the PR author refuses to fix it? 😅

And I think the hidden question here may be, how do two maintainers (the reviewer and the PR author) come to an agreement if they disagree on how to move forward with regard to a specific change? The question is also valid for the case where the PR author is a regular contributor (i.e., not a maintainer), but I think it is more difficult to answer in the first case where both parties are maintainers. In fact there may be no "governance" (i.e., policy) answer to this question.

If there is any type of disagreement then there can be a vote of the technical committee. Is not the existing documentation explicit enough in this regard? In any case, this issue is outside of the scope of this PR.

[qianglbl]

@DavidSagan After the merging, can some unaddressed comments been reopened?

[DavidSagan]

@DavidSagan After the merging, can some unaddressed comments been reopened?

There are no restrictions about reopening anything. Reopening issues that have been settled is possible. Any reopening needs to be done in a new PR.

[qianglbl]

@DavidSagan Thanks. I assume that the new PR can refer to the previous PR.

[DavidSagan]

@DavidSagan Thanks. I assume that the new PR can refer to the previous PR.

Yes. A PR can refer to anything.

[DavidSagan]

@ax3l @qianglbl @cemitch99 @EZoni @jlvay Ready for rereview.

[EZoni]

@DavidSagan

Looks good to me now. I let @jlvay, @qianglbl, @cemitch99, and @ax3l chime in further.

[cemitch99]

This looks fine to me.

[ax3l]

All review requests are ✔️ , will merge :)