search

TBD54566975 / tbdex

56 stars 26 forks source link

add codeowners #248

Closed jiyoonie9 closed 9 months ago

KendallWeihe commented 9 months ago

GitHub spazzed out and posted my review twice

phoebe-lew commented 9 months ago

@KendallWeihe I don't understand your comment. What does adding additional codeowners have to do with spec changes being upstream of a lot?

KendallWeihe commented 9 months ago

What does adding additional codeowners have to do with spec changes being upstream of a lot?

It's all a matter of governance, so I'm not intending to impose my view as the consensus nor to aim to come to a consensus here, only to recognize it as it is, governance, and to highlight the conversation of governance as a priority (at least, it's a priority in my opinion). I suppose we'd have to first come to a consensus of what it means to be a CODEOWNER. Does that imply liability, responsibility, etc? I'm under the working assumption that to be a CODEOWNER is to be held accountable for changes made. So within the context of expanding the list of CODEOWNERS, I suppose it's a bit metaphorical to expanding the number of supreme court justices, or congressional representatives, pick your poison. Of course, the number of CODEOWNERS has nothing to do with the matter that the spec is upstream, that changes here are leveraged changes because the spec is the "source of truth" (once again, what does that mean exactly?), but it does impact the means through which changes are made, regardless of who the CODEOWNERS are, the number of CODEOWNERS is one determining factor for how changes are made.

decentralgabe commented 9 months ago

how many reviewers are required? I would think for the spec & api it should be at least 3...

jiyoonie9 commented 9 months ago

how many reviewers are required? I would think for the spec & api it should be at least 3...

@decentralgabe It's 2 right now, but open to discussion. Ticket here: https://github.com/TBD54566975/tbdex/issues/252