Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
First attempt at an RFC process #7
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
First attempt at an RFC process #7
Changes from all commits
fcd332f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just my first ideas. I loosely hold the opinion that these are correct so please share your opinions on what you'd like to see here!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Required seems strong for a process that has never even been used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The scope of this feels vague enough to where someone might assume that any new feature period would require an RFC. Maybe we need to call out that it's really anything with significant implementation impact across the platforms only?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes I agree here, the
introduces new features
is too broad. How do we define whatsignificant
means? Anyone have ideas?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Non-backward compatible?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like it. Maybe use a word like recommended or warranted possibly instead of required? Makes it seem like there could be punitive consequences if something is done that is perceived as a significant change that doesn't go through an RFC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This brings up a good question, what would happen if a change goes through that should have been an RFC? Does it get backed out?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Again, loosely held opinion by me. What would you all like to see here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay I have no idea here. Is core contributor even the right word? Maintainer? Something else? We need to define what/who they are.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like maintainer, because to me a maintainer feels like it conveys more of a sense of stewardship of the project.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like that. How do we define who that is, objectively?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure if we need to define admins, or point to a legal doc somewhere
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I could swear we had this documented somewhere. I know JM wanted to eventually have our .com domain host a separate website that had us all listed with bios and such.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
He asked me to get the .com stood up, I was hoping to work on that this weekend but it didn't happen. I think that could be a good spot to link to!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we use admin in the sense of Discord, we've used the term project lead for the one or two people accountable for the direction of a specific project (eg: Garth for iOS). We do have a group of people who help maintain each project, approve PRs, etc. Maintainer may be a good one.
It may be good to have community managers at some point. Robert would be an excellent good example of this.
The people on the LLC are Members (this is the legal term) and each member may have a different title for how they see their own role play out. The LLC members are unpaid.
We should keep the roles of the LLC separate from the open source project. Right now, not every admin is a member of the LLC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe this sort of guide is overdue. @ajmcquilkin has been talking about growing the sense of so things projects can persist.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, if we go with
Maintainer
how do we define who these people are?