refactor(gov): 新增否决覆写机制#24
Open
Mikuoso wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
Mikuoso
added
the
Type: Refactor
审阅者指南（在小型 PR 上折叠）审阅者指南记录了一种新的治理“否决权覆盖（veto‑override）”机制，并将其写入变更日志，明确说明维护者如何推翻核心维护者的否决以及如何计票。 新治理否决覆盖机制的流程图flowchart TD
A[Proposal PR created] --> B[Core maintainer reviews]
B --> C{Core maintainer vetoes?}
C -- No --> M[Squash and Merge]
C -- Yes --> D[Core maintainer posts written explanation]
D --> E[Maintainer team reviews explanation]
E --> F{Maintainer team majority opposes explanation?}
F -- No --> G[Veto stands PR not merged]
F -- Yes --> H[Veto overridden]
H --> I[PR is force merged]
subgraph Voting_rule
J[Core maintainer with maintainer role] --> K[Counts as one vote only]
end
文件级变更
技巧与命令与 Sourcery 交互
自定义你的体验打开你的 dashboard 以：
获取帮助Original review guide in EnglishReviewer's guide (collapsed on small PRs)Reviewer's GuideDocuments a new governance veto-override mechanism and records it in the changelog, specifying how maintainers can overrule a core maintainer’s veto and how votes are counted. Flow diagram for the new governance veto override mechanismflowchart TD
A[Proposal PR created] --> B[Core maintainer reviews]
B --> C{Core maintainer vetoes?}
C -- No --> M[Squash and Merge]
C -- Yes --> D[Core maintainer posts written explanation]
D --> E[Maintainer team reviews explanation]
E --> F{Maintainer team majority opposes explanation?}
F -- No --> G[Veto stands PR not merged]
F -- Yes --> H[Veto overridden]
H --> I[PR is force merged]
subgraph Voting_rule
J[Core maintainer with maintainer role] --> K[Counts as one vote only]
end
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey - 我发现了 1 个问题，并留下了一些整体性的反馈：
- 当前对“覆写表决”的规则表述中同时使用了“三分之二以上反对”和“多数通过”等不同阈值，建议明确各自适用的投票对象和具体比例（如相对多数/绝对多数），以避免实际执行时的歧义。
- 建议在否决覆写机制中补充对投票范围和人数要求的边界条件，例如维护者人数较少、部分维护者缺席或投票冲突（如运营/技术双重身份）时如何计算，以确保规则在极端情况也可操作。
面向 AI Agent 的提示
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- 当前对“覆写表决”的规则表述中同时使用了“三分之二以上反对”和“多数通过”等不同阈值，建议明确各自适用的投票对象和具体比例（如相对多数/绝对多数），以避免实际执行时的歧义。
- 建议在否决覆写机制中补充对投票范围和人数要求的边界条件，例如维护者人数较少、部分维护者缺席或投票冲突（如运营/技术双重身份）时如何计算，以确保规则在极端情况也可操作。
## Individual Comments
### Comment 1
<location path="docs/governance/decision-making.md" line_range="73-74" />
<code_context>
- **批准**：点击 Squash and Merge。方案正式转化为茶馆的执行指令或历史档案。
- **否决**：核心维护者有权拒绝合并不符合标准的提案，但必须给出基于本 Protocol 的书面解释。当核心维护者人数超过 3 人时，重大否决需经核心维护者内部多数通过。
+!!! info "否决覆写"
+ 若否决的书面解释遭到全体维护者（含运营与技术维护者）三分之二以上反对，可发起覆写表决。覆写需经维护者团队多数通过，通过后 PR 强制合并，否决失效。
+
!!! info "关于审计权"
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion:** 请明确“多数”在覆写投票中的具体含义。
这里的“维护者团队多数通过”可以被理解为以下几种简单多数中的任意一种：(1) 全体维护者的简单多数；(2) 所有有投票资格成员的简单多数；或 (3) 仅参与该次投票成员的简单多数。由于这里定义的是一个正式的覆写流程，请添加一句简短说明，阐明实际意图是哪一种，并说明多数是如何计算的。
```suggestion
!!! info "否决覆写"
若否决的书面解释遭到全体维护者（含运营与技术维护者）三分之二以上反对，可发起覆写表决。覆写需经参加该次表决的维护者简单多数（即赞成票数严格大于反对票数）通过，通过后 PR 强制合并，否决失效。
```
</issue_to_address>帮助我变得更有用！请在每条评论上点击 👍 或 👎，我会根据你的反馈改进评审质量。
Original comment in English
Hey - I've found 1 issue, and left some high level feedback:
- 当前对“覆写表决”的规则表述中同时使用了“三分之二以上反对”和“多数通过”等不同阈值，建议明确各自适用的投票对象和具体比例（如相对多数/绝对多数），以避免实际执行时的歧义。
- 建议在否决覆写机制中补充对投票范围和人数要求的边界条件，例如维护者人数较少、部分维护者缺席或投票冲突（如运营/技术双重身份）时如何计算，以确保规则在极端情况也可操作。
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- 当前对“覆写表决”的规则表述中同时使用了“三分之二以上反对”和“多数通过”等不同阈值，建议明确各自适用的投票对象和具体比例（如相对多数/绝对多数），以避免实际执行时的歧义。
- 建议在否决覆写机制中补充对投票范围和人数要求的边界条件，例如维护者人数较少、部分维护者缺席或投票冲突（如运营/技术双重身份）时如何计算，以确保规则在极端情况也可操作。
## Individual Comments
### Comment 1
<location path="docs/governance/decision-making.md" line_range="73-74" />
<code_context>
- **批准**：点击 Squash and Merge。方案正式转化为茶馆的执行指令或历史档案。
- **否决**：核心维护者有权拒绝合并不符合标准的提案，但必须给出基于本 Protocol 的书面解释。当核心维护者人数超过 3 人时，重大否决需经核心维护者内部多数通过。
+!!! info "否决覆写"
+ 若否决的书面解释遭到全体维护者（含运营与技术维护者）三分之二以上反对，可发起覆写表决。覆写需经维护者团队多数通过，通过后 PR 强制合并，否决失效。
+
!!! info "关于审计权"
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion:** Specify the exact meaning of "多数" for the override vote.
Here “维护者团队多数通过” could be read as a simple majority of (1) all maintainers, (2) all eligible voters, or (3) only participants in the vote. Since this defines a formal override process, please add a brief note clarifying which of these is intended and how the majority is computed.
```suggestion
!!! info "否决覆写"
若否决的书面解释遭到全体维护者（含运营与技术维护者）三分之二以上反对，可发起覆写表决。覆写需经参加该次表决的维护者简单多数（即赞成票数严格大于反对票数）通过，通过后 PR 强制合并，否决失效。
```
</issue_to_address>Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
Comment on lines
+73
to
+74
| !!! info "否决覆写" | ||
| 若否决的书面解释遭到全体维护者（含运营与技术维护者）三分之二以上反对，可发起覆写表决。覆写需经维护者团队多数通过，通过后 PR 强制合并，否决失效。 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion: 请明确“多数”在覆写投票中的具体含义。
这里的“维护者团队多数通过”可以被理解为以下几种简单多数中的任意一种：(1) 全体维护者的简单多数；(2) 所有有投票资格成员的简单多数；或 (3) 仅参与该次投票成员的简单多数。由于这里定义的是一个正式的覆写流程，请添加一句简短说明，阐明实际意图是哪一种，并说明多数是如何计算的。
Suggested change
| !!! info "否决覆写" | |
| 若否决的书面解释遭到全体维护者（含运营与技术维护者）三分之二以上反对，可发起覆写表决。覆写需经维护者团队多数通过，通过后 PR 强制合并，否决失效。 | |
| !!! info "否决覆写" | |
| 若否决的书面解释遭到全体维护者（含运营与技术维护者）三分之二以上反对，可发起覆写表决。覆写需经参加该次表决的维护者简单多数（即赞成票数严格大于反对票数）通过，通过后 PR 强制合并，否决失效。 |
Original comment in English
suggestion: Specify the exact meaning of "多数" for the override vote.
Here “维护者团队多数通过” could be read as a simple majority of (1) all maintainers, (2) all eligible voters, or (3) only participants in the vote. Since this defines a formal override process, please add a brief note clarifying which of these is intended and how the majority is computed.
Suggested change
| !!! info "否决覆写" | |
| 若否决的书面解释遭到全体维护者（含运营与技术维护者）三分之二以上反对，可发起覆写表决。覆写需经维护者团队多数通过，通过后 PR 强制合并，否决失效。 | |
| !!! info "否决覆写" | |
| 若否决的书面解释遭到全体维护者（含运营与技术维护者）三分之二以上反对，可发起覆写表决。覆写需经参加该次表决的维护者简单多数（即赞成票数严格大于反对票数）通过，通过后 PR 强制合并，否决失效。 |
Member
Author
|
@sourcery-ai review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
嗨，我在这里给出了一些整体性的反馈：
- 建议进一步明确“维护者团队多数”的定义（例如，具体的百分比、弃权/缺席的处理方式），以避免在何时可以推翻否决权方面产生歧义。
- 建议补充说明触发否决权覆写的具体操作流程（由谁发起投票、投票时间窗口、投票记录在哪里），这样可以确保该机制被一致地执行。
供 AI 代理使用的提示
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- Consider clarifying what constitutes “维护者团队多数” (e.g., explicit percentage, handling of abstentions/absences) to avoid ambiguity in when a veto override is valid.
- It may help to specify the operational procedure for triggering a veto override (who initiates the vote, time window, where votes are recorded) so the mechanism is consistently applied.帮我变得更有用！请在每条评论上点 👍 或 👎，我会根据你的反馈改进之后的代码审查。
Original comment in English
Hey - I've left some high level feedback:
- Consider clarifying what constitutes “维护者团队多数” (e.g., explicit percentage, handling of abstentions/absences) to avoid ambiguity in when a veto override is valid.
- It may help to specify the operational procedure for triggering a veto override (who initiates the vote, time window, where votes are recorded) so the mechanism is consistently applied.
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- Consider clarifying what constitutes “维护者团队多数” (e.g., explicit percentage, handling of abstentions/absences) to avoid ambiguity in when a veto override is valid.
- It may help to specify the operational procedure for triggering a veto override (who initiates the vote, time window, where votes are recorded) so the mechanism is consistently applied.Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
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.
由 Sourcery 提供的摘要
在治理决策流程中记录一项否决权覆盖机制，并在变更日志中记录该变更。
文档：
Original summary in English
Summary by Sourcery
在治理决策流程和变更日志中记录新的维护者否决权（veto）覆盖机制。
文档：
Original summary in English
Summary by Sourcery
Document a new maintainer veto override mechanism in the governance decision-making protocol and changelog.
Documentation: