This issue is to record the discussion that ensued around GitHub use procedures at the 2020 CF Community Meeting on 2020-06-09. I have copied it from the [plenary discussion notes](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lGEnqGAiudC2t3LQzp7SPmVfsQUoqQUMapjvPBY-OkE/edit) and will use it to generate issues that can be closed by setting things up in GitHub or noting good practices in CONTRIBUTING.md. Apologies for the noise - normally we like 1 issue for 1 topic but I prefer to approach this in this way in order to ensure that no contributions are lost.
> - [ ] Sadie Bartholomew (NCAS/Reading): What would, or have, you done in the > case that an Issue gets so many comments it becomes too impractical to follow? > - [ ] [SB as above]: Is the 3 week rule rigid (& fairly precisely held)? I am > wondering about times such as over Christmas etc when people might be less > active such that it could be ‘easier’ to get acceptance under that part of > the rule. > - [ ] Hélène Côté (Ouranos): I think flexibility is nice as the need to > reach a diversity of point of views and other communities will increase. At > least the date of the end of this period should be explicit. > - [ ] SB: I would agree (at least some) flexibility is a plus. > - [ ] Jonathan: I think it’s OK, within the three-week period, to > “object” by saying, “I need more time.” The most important thing is not the > total time it took, but that the best possible consensus is achieved. > - [ ] Hélène Côté(Ouranos): I agree. > - [ ] David Hassell (NCAS): Who would be responsible for moving the issue > between columns of the project board? The proposer, the moderator, or someone > else? (I like the idea, by the way.) > - [ ] Trevor Smith (Ouranos): Have you considered using the automated > features for moving KanBan cards? IE: Setting a rule that once a PR is > accepted, it can move to a new column. I’m not sure if you can make > time-based rules, but that could help reduce the human effort needed. > - [ ] (Trevor Smith) I also like the idea of asking contributors to add > their names to History and Contributors files. We currently do this for some > projects. > - [ ] David Hassell: I too like the idea of asking the proposer to do > this. > - [ ] Karl Taylor (PCMDI): I liked the suggested technical changes for > improving the process. > - [ ] Trevor Smith (Ouranos): Minor suggestion, but if you use the html > commenting conventions ( `<-- Comments go here -->`) contributors won’t need > to remove them when adding a new issue/PR. > - [ ] Jonathan Gregory, Daniel Lee: note moderator in history? Keep summary > up to date but also post updates as comments? 6 week wait triggered by motion? > - [ ] David Hassell: Also note proposer in history, so contribution is > made specific. > - [ ] Kanban seems to have support as voiced by Trevor & Klaus - introducing > it does not cause harm > - [ ] Jonathan: To record David’s suggestion of making a comment in the > issue when the summary is updated, in order that everyone will be notified, > and also because the moderator’s summary is part of the discussion and needs > to be recorded therein for the discussion to make sense when read subsequently -- 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/275 This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from [email protected], although if you do nothing, a subscription to the UCAR list will result in a subscription to this list. To unsubscribe from this list only, send a message to [email protected].
