doc: clarified & split up contribution docs #233
Conversation
|
/ @mikeal calling you out specifically to review this as you contributed the original governance stuff |
| ## Resources for Newcomers | ||
|
|
||
| * [CONTRIBUTING.md](./CONTRIBUTING.md) | ||
| * [GOVERNANE.md](./GOVERNANE.md) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like a typo here.
|
This looks great to me. I especially appreciate
being explicitly called out. 👏 |
|
I think breaking them up as they get large makes sense but this is going to exacerbate the problem we have with messaging around all of this the longer that it gets. Maybe the website needs to have a more accessible message about all this that links to these documents? |
| or improve performance without affecting API or causing other | ||
| wide-reaching impact) may be landed after a shorter delay. | ||
|
|
||
| Where there is no disagreement (or discussion) amongst Collaborators, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the "(or discussion)" is confusing here. What we're trying to say is "if there is no disagreement go ahead and land it" but this makes it sounds like what we're really looking for is a lack of input and discussion at all which I don't think we're advocating.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
removed "(or discussion)" to fix this seems enough
|
I understand that there are concerns with using the regular voting mechanics for changes in membership. I'd like to find a solution to those concerns that does not use unanimous consent. I've seen full consensus lead to unfortunate outcomes too often and while we might have concerns with a slight majority taking over the TC I have much deeper concerns with enabling a single person to hijack the same process which is what we get with full consensus. I can come up with an alternate proposal if someone can layout the concerns we're trying to address with full consensus here. |
- clarified the role of "collaborators" - split out a governance doc - split out a collaborator guide - cleaned up the contributing doc - cleaned up the readme & added collaborators list
|
@mikeal since this PR isn't making any significant changes to the governance rules other than introducing a rule for collaborators, perhaps we should iterate on changes to GOVERNANCE.md as a second PR? |
| conversation that lead up to that change. | ||
| - A `Fixes: X` line, where _X_ is either includes the full GitHub URL | ||
| for an issue, and/or the hash and commit message if the commit fixes | ||
| a bug in a previous commit. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be helpful to note that a single commit can have multiple Fixes: lines.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As a final minor nit, it might be useful to link to a commit or two in the repo as examples of what's expected.
|
Pending addressing the nits, LGTM. |
- clarified the role of "collaborators" - split out a governance doc - split out a collaborator guide - cleaned up the contributing doc - cleaned up the readme & added collaborators list PR-URL: #233 Reviewed-By: Chris Dickinson <christopher.s.dickinson@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Mikeal Rogers <mikeal.rogers@gmail.com> (Note: no explicit "LGTM" from Mikeal) Discussed at TC meeting 2015-01-07, agreed to push further amendments to governance to future PRs.
|
merged with some fixes in c52e43d |
This is kind of large and contains cleanup, additions and some minor changes to policy so it'll need to be TC approved.
Added two extra docs in root: GOVERNANCE.md and COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md, edited README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md
I don't really know what to do with the section in CONTRIBUTING.md on Caine yet, is he active? Does he need such a large mention (it's kind of confusing as it is)?
Further to this I'll be enumerating people who have made "significant" contributions to the project for consideration at the next TC meeting in #230 because that hasn't been properly done yet!