Revise review howto in light of ToS changes

[chadwhitacre]

Part of #432.

Closes #803.

[chadwhitacre]

Ready for review, @mattbk!

[chadwhitacre]

[mattbk]

Should we have some sort of note in there about how we used to require open work, since it's discussed in the project-review repo?

Also, this has to wait for gratipay/gratipay.com#4117 to merge, correct?

[chadwhitacre]

since it's discussed in the project-review repo?

You mean in the project-review readme, or in tickets? If the former, let's take it out; if the latter, do you really think we need to worry about it? Is the concern that someone might read an old ticket and wonder what we're talking about?

[chadwhitacre]

Also, this has to wait for gratipay/gratipay.com#4117 to merge, correct?

Yeah, I think we should queue up all of these PRs, and then merge and deploy them as close together as we can.

[chadwhitacre]

these PRs

Namely, the ones under todo on #432.

[mattbk]

In tickets. The concern is that someone might read old tickets in order to understand whether their project fits in...well, never mind. We have new TOS that covers everything. If people are confused they can ask, or look at an old version of this page.

I approve these changes.

[chadwhitacre]

On the other hand, new folks who read the docs and see a note about the old way will also be confused. In general I think it's better to let the past be in the past.

[mattbk]

No worries. At least I know about it, so I can effectively support. ;)

[chadwhitacre]

Well, but this document is aimed at internal staff such as yourself. It's fair to add a line giving context for old review tickets.

[chadwhitacre]

Do we need to think about project review for npm packages (gratipay/gratipay.com#4148) now? Or do we punt on that?

[chadwhitacre]

Or do we punt on that?

Punt, I think.

[chadwhitacre]

In which case I am good to go here. How's it look to you, @mattbk et al.?

[mattbk]

Most recent changes LGTM.