-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 229
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Community Survey Issue: Help for Authors/Reviewers #1019
Comments
I think we can only do this if we can make a pdf autogenerate every time we add a new commit to the relevant page. In my opinion it is not a good use of our time to keep pdfs on this topic maintained in multiple languages each time we make a tweak to our GitHub workflow (or, indeed, each time GitHub make a tweak to their workflow). |
The reviewer question is tricky. I never look who is in the pool. I look for who is an internationally renowned expert in that topic. I don't care if they've signed up to review for us or not. I just send them an email. Maybe that's not clear to people who think they're in a pool. And I imagine what I do isn't consistent with what other editors do. |
Re: how to use github, I'm always in favor of pointing people to the actual GitHub documentation - we really should not be duplicating it with our own, only adding it details about our specific workflows. |
We discussed this at #1011. In particular we discussed the fact that we ask for reviewers to join our pool https://programminghistorian.org/en/contribute#join-our-team-of-reviewers but then don't seem to use them. Which means we either need to use them or stop asking for reviewers to join the pool. |
I propose removing the section on "join our team of reviewers", and closing this ticket. This simplifies things and removes the expectation that volunteering to do reviews will necessarily result in requests for you to do reviewing. |
From the survey, it seemed as though most folks thought our guidelines were quite clear but we did receive the following comments from 3 survey participants:
Are there pieces within this feedback that we could use to improve on our guidelines and instructions?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: