openstack-doc-core team mailing list archive

[Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxxx>]

On 11/17/2016 04:10 AM, Lana Brindley wrote:
> On 17/11/16 12:55, Anne Gentle wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Alexandra Settle <alexandra.settle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:alexandra.settle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>
>>     Sorry for all the questions! Just many thoughts running through my head. Let it be known that I definitely think this is a good idea! But I suggest some lines are drawn so we are all clearly on the same page.
>>
>>
>> I suggest we try it and see what chaos ensues with these guidelines:
>> 1. If it's technically accurate, merge it. If it fixes a bug correctly, merge it.
>> 2. If it's accurate and correct but could be written better, edit, then merge it with a comment to coach the person how the writing could be better.
>> 3. If it's not the kind of patch we want for the docs, explain that in the review and also follow up to make sure the person doesn't feel rejected outright. Take ownership of the coaching areas more than the "this is wrong and here's why" aspect. (I'm not saying your reviews are like that, mind you, I just want ownership of the growth of contributors and the accurate doc base, not ownership of "it meets our English standards.")
>>
> 
> I like these guidelines!
> 
> What about relaxing our requirements on the number of votes required? Is a +1 and a +2A enough?

I +2 often changes that I edited - and there I do like another +2 on them ;)

Let's make one change at at time :)

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
       HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
    GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126