@ChrisBarker-NOAA I think the issue with #148 may be that the rules are not being followed. I just commented on that issue to see if we can get a moderator who can start to summarize the current state of the proposal.
I think it would be good practice to make updates to the original body of the proposal as the discussion evolves, but I don't think we should make that call without trying it out. Maybe someone would want to moderate that issue and see how it works? GitHub does track the history of changes to comments on issues (main description counts as a comment). I also just got the issue template set up properly. You can see it here: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/blob/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/proposed-change-request.md and it is presented to anyone opening a new issue on this repository now. It wasn't set up right until now so #148 didn't get all the details that would have been needed to be in accordance with the cf rules. Regarding your proposal, 1) I think that the "enhancement" tag and the rule to have a moderator is meant to satisfy the need you are describing regarding contentious discussion around cf enhancements -- I would prefer to let the existing rules be tried out for a while before making changes. 2) I don't disagree that we should think about how to use branching if at all and make sure we are using the github-flow appropriately. However, given that we are at such an early phase of utilizing the system, I would prefer to have a few proposals attempt to interpret and follow the contributing guidelines as they stand and see where there are gaps that need to be filled rather than getting (potentially overly) prescriptive in the near term. My preference would be to close this issue and keep an eye on these concerns as we move forward. Best, - Dave -- 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#issuecomment-437351539
