Part J — Governance and adjudication documents - #13
Merged
Merged
Conversation
`GOVERNANCE.md`: who maintains (currently one — @DeviousCardi — with a process for how another is added or removed), and the rule that a maintainer employed by or paid by a vendor in the matrix declares it in the file and recuses from adjudicating, reviewing, or merging anything about that vendor. `ADJUDICATION.md`: makes `AGENTS.md`'s three-tier precedence operational — the process for the one tier that reaches an issue (spec silent, no reference implementation to defer to), what the upstream question has to establish, and what "promote the check" actually changes (a `present` case never fails a backend for what it records; an `exact` one does, because a rule now exists for it to violate). Worked example: `otlp-logs/timestamp-nanosecond-precision`, whose own notes already say "Adjudication open." Deviates from the plan's literal `docs/ADJUDICATION.md` path: `docs/` is gitignored in this repository (`CLAUDE.md`: "Planning documents are not in this repository"), and the operational content this project has already moved out of `docs/DESIGN.md` lives in `AGENTS.md`, a tracked file — so `ADJUDICATION.md`, which exists for outside readers to act on, goes at the repository root beside `GOVERNANCE.md`, not into the directory nothing else publishes from. `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/adjudication.md` and `divergence.md` already existed from earlier work and needed no changes; `README.md` and `CONTRIBUTING.md` now link both new documents, and README gains the `Funding` section the plan asks for — none currently, stated rather than left silent. Ran the adjudication process through the template end to end for the timestamp-nanosecond-precision case: opened #12 (the `adjudication` label did not exist yet either; created it), filled in every section the process currently allows — what five implementations do, the specification's own text and exactly where it stops, and the question as it would be put upstream — and left the "question put upstream" and "their answer" sections open rather than guessed at, per this project's own standing policy of not filing issues against repositories it does not maintain without approval; `ADJUDICATION.md` says plainly that an issue with no upstream question linked stays open with nothing to promote, which is exactly this issue's state. Linked from the case's own `notes:`. 166 tests, 0 clippy warnings, corpus gate passes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018k65nFSzuwsHwYnpSHNaeK
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Part J of PLAN-1.0.md. Branched from
maindirectly (independent of #10 and#11, mergeable in any order).
GOVERNANCE.md— who maintains, how a maintainer is added or removed,and the vendor conflict-of-interest rule.
ADJUDICATION.md— makesAGENTS.md's three-tier precedenceoperational: the process, what the upstream question has to establish,
what promoting a check actually changes. Worked example:
otlp-logs/timestamp-nanosecond-precision.README.md/CONTRIBUTING.mdlink both; README gains aFundingsection(none currently).
Deliberate deviation from the plan text: it names
docs/ADJUDICATION.md,but
docs/is gitignored in this repository perCLAUDE.md("Planningdocuments are not in this repository"), and the operational content this
project already moved out of
docs/DESIGN.mdlives inAGENTS.md, atracked file. So
ADJUDICATION.mdgoes at the repository root, where anoutside reader can actually find it.
Ran the process through the template end to end for the timestamp-precision
case: opened #12 (creating the
adjudicationlabel,which didn't exist yet either), filled in every section the process
currently allows, and left "question put upstream"/"their answer" open
rather than guessed at — filing the actual upstream question against
open-telemetry's own repository needs approval this PR doesn't assume, per
this project's standing policy on posting to repositories it doesn't
maintain.
ADJUDICATION.mdsays plainly that's exactly the state an issuewith no upstream question linked should be in.
166 tests (docs-only, no code touched), 0 clippy warnings, corpus gate passes.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_018k65nFSzuwsHwYnpSHNaeK