Describe governance and restructure website and repo scopes #295
Conversation
sdruskat
requested review from
led02,
poikilotherm,
zyzzyxdonta,
nheeb,
SKernchen and
a team
|
@softwarepub/core and @softwarepub/hermes-steering-group Please review, especially carefully for |
| - Stephan Druskat (DLR), stephan.druskat@dlr.de | ||
| - David Pape (HZDR) | ||
| - Nitai Heeb (FZJ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - Stephan Druskat (DLR), stephan.druskat@dlr.de | |
| - David Pape (HZDR) | |
| - Nitai Heeb (FZJ) | |
| - Stephan Druskat (DLR), stephan.druskat@dlr.de | |
| - David Pape (HZDR), d.pape@hzdr.de | |
| - Nitai Heeb (FZJ), n.heeb@fz-juelich.de | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, I wanted to see first if @zyzzyxdonta and @nheeb wanted their emails in there or not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nheeb? Are you happy to have your email listed?
Co-authored-by: David Pape <d.pape@hzdr.de>
…:softwarepub/hermes into feature/287-governance-website-structure
I'm not a fan of this phrasing because it can contradict in certain cases the rules laid out in GOVERNANCE.md 🤷🏻♂️ |
Huh, interesting automatism. Let me check if there is a switch I can flip so that this doesn't appear. I can't see how I'd have triggered this through review invitations. In any case, this change is critical enough to warrant more thorough reviews, calling @led02, @poikilotherm, @nheeb. |
@zyzzyxdonta Yea, this seems to have been triggered through the invitation of the group. These are the options for the team setup and code review:
At least option 2 seems to make sense in our case? And perhaps option 1 on top? |
2 makes sense, yes. 1 not so much. If I assign the steering group I want all of them to see it, no matter if I "accidentally" select one of its members. |
Changed settings to look like this now. Look okay to you?
|
| uses: fsfe/reuse-action@v5 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| uses: fsfe/reuse-action@v5 | |
| uses: fsfe/reuse-action@v5 | |
| The maintainer and any member of the Steering Group can ask for a longer decision period, | ||
| which must be granted. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As this could lead to an infinite block by a block by a single member, maybe we should add a fallback here:
| The maintainer and any member of the Steering Group can ask for a longer decision period, | |
| which must be granted. | |
| The maintainer and any member of the Steering Group can ask for a longer decision period, | |
| which must be granted. | |
| During this period, the steering committee should meet to discuss the decision. |
Fix #287