Community Expectations

All Chef Software Inc. code is open-source and operated as community projects. Consequently, it is wholly dependent on its community to provide a productive, friendly and collaborative environment.

The first and foremost goal of the greater Chef community is to develop automation technologies that streamline the process of building, deploying, and managing software systems. The second and equally important goal is the creation of a community that fosters low-friction development of such tools.

We therefore describe the expectations for members of the Chef Software Inc. community. This document is intended to be a living document that evolves as the community evolves via the same PR and code review process that shapes the rest of the projects. It currently covers the expectations of conduct that govern all members of the community as well as the expectations around code review that govern all active contributors to all Chef Software Inc. projects.

Code Review

As a community, we believe in the value of code review for all contributions. Code review increases both the quality and readability of our codebase, which in turn produces high quality software.

Consequently, as a community, we expect that all active participants in the community will also be active reviewers. The project membership outlines the responsibilities of the different contributor roles.

Expect reviewers to request that your PRs follow the specific project's style and testing requirements.

For more information on the review process, see the Code Reviews section of the Collaborative Development Principles guide.

Expectations of reviewers: Review comments

Because reviewers are often the first point of contact between new members of the community and can significantly impact the first impression of the community, reviewers are especially important in shaping the Chef Software Inc. community. Reviewers are required to abide by the Code of Conduct and are strongly encouraged to go above and beyond the Code of Conduct to promote a collaborative, respectful community.

Expectations of reviewers: Review latency

Reviewers are expected to respond in a timely fashion to pull requests that are assigned to them. All pull requests should receive a response (though not necessarily be merged) within the Response Time Maximum (RTM) specified for that project. When a reviewer is assigned to an active PR, they are expected to respond as soon as possible. If reviewers fail to respond, those PRs may be assigned to other reviewers.

A PR is considered active when all commits have a proper DCO signature and there are no merge conflicts. PRs are considered inactive when they do not have a proper DCO or have merge conflicts that require a rebase. PRs are also considered inactive when they have the WIP label or title prefix.

Note: PRs being held with an Incomplete label are not considered active until the contributor responds to the Reviewer or Approver feedback.

Thanks

Many thanks in advance to everyone who contributes their time and effort to making the Chef OSS community successful. Our software's success and strength come entirely from your efforts.