Discussion: How to update FEP-a4ed

[silverpill]

@how

at least 3 people should be agreeing on the changes — these people should have good standing with the community, e.g., with commit access or reviewer membership in the Fediverse team, or moderator/host access on the SocialHub, or chair of the SocialCG, or @trust_level_2 here.

I think at the moment we don’t have 3 editors who can regularly review changes (see my previous comment). The number can be changed later though.

People who are not editors may express opinions, but they can’t make decisions, because these decisions directly affect FEP editors who do the chores.

@how

the SUBMISSION.md should enforce mentioning new issues on the SocialHub so that the whole community gains quick awareness of changes and keeps the process going on here.

Such requirement should probably go into FEP-a4ed. SUBMISSION.md is just a convenient way to refer to “all submission methods” without repeating them (currently there’s only one but we can expect more in the future).

Also, I think this topic is separate from the current one and should be tackled in a separate pull request. Again, the discussion on task management feels relevant: Task management at FEP repository

@how

the delay before a change is adopted should be increased to a month.

No strong opinion on merge delay. @helge do you support 1 month suggestion?

@how

In the meantime, a proposed change may be ‘pending’ after a week to ensure it becomes visible. Maybe there could be a ‘staging’ branch for upcoming FEP changes?

We can also use issue labels.

@helge

A pull request should not be merged if a single member of the community disapproves of it without their issues having been appropriately addressed.

This could become a vector of abuse. Maybe only FEP editors should have the veto power?

@helge

It should be made clear that all such pull requests must be in accordance with FEP goals: “The goal of a FEP is to improve interoperability and well-being of diverse services, applications and communities that form the Fediverse.”. I would also add the objective of keeping FEP a light weight process to this list. This means that a significant pull request that does not further these goals or makes FEP more heavy weight, should be rejected.

How would you like to codify this idea? Do you think we should make section “Scope and objectives” unchangeable, like a constitution?