decision: write assumption about experts
@@ -13,7 +13,12 @@ But substantial decisions must be made in a transparent and participative way.
- [Documentation guidelines](/doc/contrib/documentation.md) apply.
- During the decision process, the PRs constantly get updated:
- Make changes as new commits to the pull request.
- - Questions in the PRs are answered by updating the PR and answering with the commit id.
+ - Questions in the PRs are answered by:
+ 1. updating the PR
+ 2. either:
+ - reply with a quote of the change and the commit SHA-ID
+ - reply with a diff of the change
+ - give a thumbs-up if the change was done exactly as suggested
- As generally recommended in Elektra, do not squash commits after they are visible on the pull request.
- Rebase only if the decision was already accepted and has a merge conflict.
- For reviewers:
@@ -29,6 +34,9 @@ But substantial decisions must be made in a transparent and participative way.
We don't need a vote (besides the approved review) or a benevolent dictatorship.
- Unlike the Rust Decision process, decisions in Elektra do not have a disadvantage if they were flawed in early stages.
Only the end results counts.
+- Different to initiatives like Rust, most contributors in Elektra are not experts in configuration management or programming languages.
+ So we do not expect that a clear problem or solution is in the decision's write mind beforehand.
+ Instead the decisions is also a supported learning process about the problem and solution.
## Considered Alternatives
