Page History

A couple quick thoughts - I went down the thought process of reviewers should be active and familiar with the area, but found it difficult to put names to a given submodel.   Maybe leave it as a general 'rule' without putting names to it?

1. The editor commits some updateSomeone editing a given submodel commits an update to gerrit.
1. A reasonable message is included in the commit, explaining what was updated.
   1. Given there is only a few characters allowed in the first line of commit, the second line of text should probably be used. 
2. Generally, a separate commit should be performed for each submodel.   An exception to this would be if the multiple models relate as part of some effort (some cross-model contribution).
3. IISOMI modeling guidelines must be followed, and reviews must assure that the guidelines are being adhered to before discussion occurs in some working team.
2. The committer
should assign
3. assigns reviewers
   1. One primary independent reviewer and perhaps a backup reviewer
to
4. 1. is assigned to perform the +1.
  This individual
5. 1. 
      Note:  Only one +1 is required, regardless of the number of reviewers assigned
      1. The +1  reviewer cannot be the
model owner or
6. 1. 1. submodel editor or the editor performing the papyrus commit (if different from the submodel editor).
      2. The +1 reviewer cannot be from the same company as the editor performing the
papyrus
7. 1. 1. commit.
      2. Reviewers should be familiar with the subject area of the contribution if possible.   This suggests they participate on the weekly calls related to the contribution.   It is noted that there may be exceptions to this (work on some concept may be "new" to all).
   2. The submodel
owner
8. Common:  Xu + 1 ; Kevin +2  
Kevin work on this
9. 1. editor is responsible for performing the +2 after the independent +1 is completed.
   Suggested +1 and +2 Committers by submodel (Kevin to reconcile with owner list in Papyrus) 
   2. 1. 1. If the editor performing the commit is not the submodel editor, the editor should also assign the submodel editor as a committer on the gerrit change request.
      2. The committer must also supply a gendoc output of the submodel (or the relevant portion of the submodel), supplying it to the reviewers to facilitate easier approval.
     Settle on where this will be 
   3. 1.   
         1. Gendoc output to be placed in Model tools \ Papyrus \ Gendoc Files Related to Gerrit Commits
         2. Providing such output will allow for quick reviews, and not require the reviewers to attempt to download the committed files into a papyrus environment for review.
   4. Reviewers
   1. Keep in mind that commits are part of a "work in progress", not necessarily a finished work.
   2. Reviews should be completed quickly
   5. Reviewers
   1. Reviewers should not work for the same company as the committer (at least not the reviewer performing the +1)
   2. Reviewers should be familiar with the subject area of the contribution if possible.   This suggests they participate on the weekly calls related to the contribution.   It is noted that there may be exceptions to this (work on party, business interaction, etc. may be "new" to all.
   3. We want perform reviews quickly to facilitate further development (suggest 24 hours or less).
   4. For contributions of new material not yet socialized and/or not fully developed, a fairly 'relaxed' review with perhaps some suggestions is very reasonable. 

   ...