Reaching a decision on "drop minimum wait time"

[mmarchini]

nodejs/node#33879 has been blocked for a while, some suggestions to mitigate the concerns were raised but the objector hasn't commented on those suggestions. Therefore I would like for the TSC to step in the PR and decide if it should be closed, if it should move forward as is, or if it should move forward with modifications (and then list what those modifications should be).

---

PR Summary

PR reason

As the 2020 Node.js Contributors Survey has shown, the waiting time for pull requests is a non-trivial obstacle to meaningfully contributing to Node.js.

Proposed change

• Drops the 48-hour/7-day waiting times as strict rules.
• Drops the fast-track label, which is now the implied default.
• Adds a wait-for-feedback label that collaborators can add if they think that a pull request should remain open for at least 48 hours.
• Reduces the strict requirement for merging something to 1 approval, and keep 2 approvals as a strong suggestion.
• Allows immediate reverting of pull requests that have been fast-tracked, if deemed necessary.

Objection

• drop wait time - disadvantages/marginalizes collaborators from non-EU/US time zones
• revert rule - internet drama generator

Compromise suggestions

nodejs/node#33879 (comment), nodejs/node#33879 (comment):

• If a particular piece of code has one or more CODEOWNERS and one or more of those have signed off and the PR has passed CI, skip the 48 hour rule
• Our current rules say that a PR that does not have at least two sign offs must wait a full 7 days before it can land. Reduce that to 3 days (that is, so long as the PR has at least one sign off and passes CI, it can land after 3 days).

nodejs/node#33879 (comment):

• Drop the revert rule to avoid "internet drama". Reverts would follow the same rules as normal PRs

---

cc @nodejs/tsc

[mhdawson]

I'm +-0 with my main concern being the "immediate revert" but not to the point where I'd block (and have not in the issue). I have some worries but am willing to see how the changes work out assuming the rest of the TSC feels its the right way to go.

[mcollina]

If a particular piece of code has one or more CODEOWNERS and one or more of those have signed off and the PR has passed CI, skip the 48 hour rule

I think this is the best solution.

[MylesBorins]

+1 to this plan

[mhdawson]

I'm +1 to what @mcollina suggested:

If a particular piece of code has one or more CODEOWNERS and one or more of those have signed off and the PR has passed CI, skip the 48 hour rule

[mhdawson]

Believe this has been addressed, closing. @mmarchini let me know if you think that was not the right thing to do.