OTP-5: "OpenBMC TOF Proposal" Process

[Brad Bishop]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 01:40:09PM -0500, Patrick Williams wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:29:54PM -0400, Brad Bishop wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:33:51PM -0500, Patrick Williams wrote:
>> >Any member of the OpenBMC community may give feedback by:
>> >
>> >1. Expressing a vote to the top post of the Github issue.
>> >2. Providing grammatical suggestions to the Gerrit commit.
>> >3. Responding on the mailing list with opinions on non-grammatical OTP content.
>>
>> I think I would just like to see the entire conversation happen on the
>> list.  What would be the difficult parts with that?
>
>I listed voting in Github to avoid emails like "+1", but to allow the TOF to get
>a general sentiment.

Agreed, I like this.  I was/am sort of thinking of the list/gerrit split.

>I put "grammatical suggestions" elsewhere because:
>    1. Again, reducing clutter.
>    2. The post here is mostly a 'draft' anyhow, which needs a follow-up in
>       Gerrit later on for documentation purposes.
>    3. I've previously heard sentiment along the lines that "Gerrit is good for
>       code review but not for discussions".  Grammar is 'code review'.
>
>The purpose of having proposals on the mailing list, I think, was to give
>broader awareness and because it is easier to follow discussions in email.
>Having minor comments on the mailing list means others have to sift through
>those uninteresting emails which may reduce the visibility into the primary
>discussion(s).
>
>If we want to combine 2+3 together to have all community comments on the mailing
>list, I don't think it drastically changes the proposal and seems just as fine
>an approach.

Ok.  Let's let others weigh in.

>> >4. (Least desirable) Providing off-line feedback to a TOF member(s).
>>
>> If it is undesirable why do we have it?  Maybe we could list that
>> rationale to make sure this option is only used for those special cases?
>
>Even if we don't spell it out it is still going to happen.  You can't stop two
>people from talking to each other.  Some people are not going to be comfortable
>expressing their opinion in public but they might have an individual on the TOF
>they are comfortable confiding in.  The "least desirable" is to spell out that
>the preference is for opinions to be expressed in public.
>
>I can certainly drop this or reword it if the consensus is as such.

Sounds good - was mostly wondering if you had any specific situations in 
mind.