# Further analysis of Extras PRs, and a new draft of Extras policy proposal

**URL:** <https://forum.ansible.com/t/further-analysis-of-extras-prs-and-a-new-draft-of-extras-policy-proposal/18247>\
**Category:** Ansible Developer\
**Created:** [May 17, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/further-analysis-of-extras-prs-and-a-new-draft-of-extras-policy-proposal/18247 "2015-05-17T23:13:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Greg\_DeKoenigsberg1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/838e76/32.png) [@Greg\_DeKoenigsberg1](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Greg_DeKoenigsberg1)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/further-analysis-of-extras-prs-and-a-new-draft-of-extras-policy-proposal/18247/1 "2015-05-17T23:13:07Z")

</div>

Last week, I went through and added Github owner data to every module  
in Extras, and then I went through and tagged "owner\_pr" to every PR  
in which the requestor was also the module owner. There were a very  
few (5, I think) and they've all since been merged.

Today I made another pass through all of the Extras PRs, and looked  
for "submitters of new Extras modules who are already owners of at  
least one other module", and tagged them with "owner\_pr" as well (not  
perfect, but I didn't want to make another tag.)

There are currently 91 new PR requests for new modules. 12 of them are  
from extant module owners -- which, of course, means that 79 of them  
are not. You can find them here:

[https://github.com/ansible/ansible-modules-extras/pulls?utf8=✓&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Anew\_module+label%3Aowner\_pr](https://github.com/ansible/ansible-modules-extras/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Anew_module+label%3Aowner_pr)

I'd like to review these 12 quickly, in hopes getting some insight  
about a key question: if someone is a "module owner", does that also  
imply that they're a competent reviewer?

I'm going to assume, for now, that we will end up saying "yes" to that  
question. I hope we can, because it's now clear that what we need most  
to move Extras forward is to have more reviewers with actual  
authority.

With all that in mind, here is my latest proposal for Extras merge  
policy -- much simplified from my previous proposal.

1. For all existing modules, a +1 from the owner means "merge". I'd  
previously recommended that this come from the owner's branch, but I  
now believe that's an unnecessary step. Obviously, a push to an  
existing module from its owner is an implicit "+1". Thus: if the  
owner of a module says "merge it", we merge it.

2. All new modules need two +1s and no -1s -- and these +1s/-1s can  
come from any current module owner. If the submitter is also a module  
owner, that's an implicit +1, so any other +1 with no -1s would mean  
"merge".

I think this policy is a good mix of delegating authority, guarding  
quality, and keeping things simple.

Thoughts?

--g

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Mainguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e274bd/32.png) [@Jonathan\_Mainguy](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Jonathan_Mainguy)\
**Post date:** [May 17, 2015, 11:41pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/further-analysis-of-extras-prs-and-a-new-draft-of-extras-policy-proposal/18247/2 "2015-05-17T23:41:19Z")

</div>

Hey Greg,

This sounds pretty good, keep in mind a -1 can be removed if the contributor follows the suggestions to improve the module that generated the -1.

Thank you,  
Jon