proposed change to committers policy

[Matt Caswell]

On 24/05/2019 10:28, SHANE LONTIS wrote:
> It doesn’t stop us both reviewing a PR. That doesn’t mean we both need to approve.

Right...but in Matthias's version if you raise a PR, and then Pauli approves it,
then you only then need to get a second committer approval. Otherwise you would
need to get an OMC approval.

That sounds ok to me.

Matt

> 
> 
>> On 24 May 2019, at 7:21 pm, Matthias St. Pierre <Matthias.St.Pierre at ncp-e.com
>> <mailto:Matthias.St.Pierre at ncp-e.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >       <p>In considering approvals, the combined approvals must come
>> >       from individuals who work for separate organisations.
>> >       This condition does not apply where the organisation is the
>> >       OSF or OSS.
>>
>>
>> IMHO an important clarification needs to be made: The rule should not be about
>> _prohibiting_ double approvals. It should only be about _counting_ them.
>> I would not deprive people of the right to state their opinions.
>>
>> Also, if Shane has already approved, then Pauli should still have the right
>> to approve, since his approval counts as OMC approval and Shane's not.
>>
>> How about using a formulation like the following?
>>
>>         <p>In considering approvals, approvals from individuals being
>>         employed by the same third party company or organization should
>>         be counted as a single approval. If one of the individuals is
>>         an OMC member, the combined approval counts as an OMC approval.
>>         This condition does not apply where the organisation is the
>>         OSF or OSS.
>>
>>
>> An editorial comment: I think that the amendmend should be made inside the
>> unordered list, not following it.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_web_blob_master_policies_committers.html-23L72-2DL78&d=DwIDaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=b1aL1L-m41VGkedIk-9Q7taAEKIshTBwq95Iah07uCk&m=DYHGYucybgbeMHQn9pS8SBhh_dvJkYrDgKu9gU2l9H4&s=jT3VTidhpkkMAwUuiu_JgqW9mBpD4PP-3Qc8D3KZDdU&e=
>>
>> Apart from that: Tim, could you (or someone else of the OMC) please raise a PR
>> for your proposal? That would make it easier to discuss the details.
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>