On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:45:33AM +0100, Jiří Stránský wrote: > On 13.11.2012 15:48, Matt Wagner wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 09:05:50AM -0500, Mo Morsi wrote: > >>On 11/12/2012 12:07 PM, Justin Clift wrote: > >>>Mo, would you like to be on the website cabal? > > > >Mo ^ ? > > > >>Since the website doesn't require much verification other than viewing > >>it and manually making sure it looks good, can't we just push updates to > >>the website? > >> > >>Or perhaps send pull requests, but unless there are any critical > >>objections, those get automatically ack'd after 2 or 3 days? (comments > >>and suggestions on the pull request should be addressed but after that > >>they shouldn't be considered critical objections unless explicitly > >>indicated). Of course explicit ACKs can be pushed immediately. > > > >Personally, I'd advocate something more like the following: > > > >* For content changes, send a pull request. If you don't get a response > > in a reasonable time, pushing it yourself is fine. > >
I think that for trivial things like this you can go straight from pull to autoack. As I did for the CNAME file and for some other trivial things. And also is how Justin did during the conversion of the files. > >* For _structural_ or brand changes (e.g., changing the navigation > > items, changing the theme of the site, updating slogans...), an ACK > > from someone else should be required. More importantly, the changes > > should have been discussed ahead of time with the Cabal. > > Indeed. That's the way to go. For that, in your last patch i commented out that I wasn't sure about the changes on the news. > >I think we want to make it as easy as possible to keep the site > >up-to-date, so allowing a self-push if you get no reviewers seems > >reasonable to me. (After all, our problem is that we don't have people > >making updates, not that we have people making erroneous updates.) But > >for big, structural changes, I think chaos would reign if they weren't > >well-communicated with the group. > > > > I believe disagreements (if there are any) should be solved by voting on > respective cabals. I'd say it shouldn't go to Hugh/Angus/Mike in most cases, > and website problems really shouldn't go to Technical Cabal. Tech cabal > should solve tech stuff (APIs, conventions, making sure components work > together), we should solve website stuff. We will probably have to > communicate sometimes with Publicity Cabal, as we have some overlap, like > blog/news for example. (So +1 for you being on both, Matt, to facilitate the > communication.) > > The point of cabals, as I understand it, is to have more self-sufficient > project governance. I think Hugh said he wanted to make Aeolus less dependent > on management, but also avoid chaos and endless discussions. Cabals should > make Aeolus more of a community project, yet keep the ability to steer the > project in a sane way. > Indeed. But the point is that we don't have _yet_ a clear picture, we're in "testing" environment so unless we don't have a clear picture on the role, let's stick on the plan to see how things works. Cheers, -FV
