Starting in #124, this sub-discussion is related to defining whether is needed conditions to disapprove pull request in addition to established to approval.
The suggested criteria is:
For disapproval:
- Arguments against or questioning the relevance of the proposal not unanswered by the proponent.
- At least one review comment unresolved without arguments or changes in code.
The need I see is that insufficient approval votes are not reason enough to merge neither to deny the request because the community could be without available task force to do additional reviews or because there is no enough experts in the area. But in case a proponent didn't response a review or explicitly refuse to do it, then the proposition should be clearly disapproved.
An additional argument is that in human relations the truth is not as binary as in computing, so the disapproval criteria is not exactly the negation of the approval one.
Probably the redaction is not the best for the proposition. Feel free to suggest rephrases or addition of conditions, but the idea is to enforce:
- relevance (roadmap)
- technical guidelines (codebase)
(Is not under discussion that all the interaction is under strict conformance of CoC, so is not need to add clauses for that).
@dachary, @crystal, @KaKi87, please comment
Starting in #124, this sub-discussion is related to defining whether is needed conditions to disapprove pull request in addition to established to approval.
The suggested criteria is:
> For disapproval:
>
> - Arguments against or questioning the relevance of the proposal not unanswered by the proponent.
> - At least one review comment unresolved without arguments or changes in code.
The need I see is that insufficient approval votes are not reason enough to merge neither to deny the request because the community could be without available task force to do additional reviews or because there is no enough experts in the area. But in case a proponent didn't response a review or explicitly refuse to do it, then the proposition should be clearly disapproved.
An additional argument is that in human relations the truth is not as binary as in computing, so the disapproval criteria is not exactly the negation of the approval one.
Probably the redaction is not the best for the proposition. Feel free to suggest rephrases or addition of conditions, but the idea is to enforce:
1. relevance (roadmap)
2. technical guidelines (codebase)
(Is not under discussion that all the interaction is under strict conformance of CoC, so is not need to add clauses for that).
@dachary, @crystal, @KaKi87, please comment