In #130, we discussed and developed a CONTRIBUTING.md doc. But that Doc was aimed at contributors -- and a number of issues came up in the discussion about the workflow that weren't decided, and also not about things we should be putting in a doc designed for outside contributors. But I don't hink we ever did nail down those issues, or at least I dont see it documented anywhere.
So I also propose we start a new discussion and document for the workflow: how we are going to use branches, etc. I also propose that we create the concept of an "CF enhancement proposal" (CEP) where we document the pros and cons and final decision about a significant CF change. The Workflow doc could be the first of these. This idea was inspired by the long discussion in #148, and by other projects use of Enhancement proposals, at least in the Python community: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/ https://www.numpy.org/neps/index.html https://matplotlib.org/devel/MEP/index.html The idea is that when there is a significant (and perhaps contentious) addition or change to CF, our primary goal is an update to the convention doc. The previous discussion in #130 captured a fair bit about that process. But, in fact, we also need: - a better way to manage the discussion -- one central pace where the current proposal and pros and cons, etc are written out. - a way to capture that discussion for the future, so that when folks re-visit it in the future, they will see not just the convention, but why it is the way it is. So I propose that we create a new section in the docs in this repo for enhancement proposals -- we can start with an index and draft of a gitHub workflow doc. (and maybe one for #148, too. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/150
