Hi scikit-image folks!
> We've had a couple of community fails on GitHub recently: > https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/pull/1474#issuecomment-241283056 > https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image/issues/2080 > (The last one is missing a presumably-deleted comment where someone outside > the project recommended to a potential contributor to just fork the > project!). Being the person that reported one of those community fails, I'd like to say that I've had great experience with the scikit-image community overall. Contributors are (usually) very well welcomed, feedback is friendly, and we can have discussion and debates about "hot" topics (like dropping python2.7) in a friendly and nice environment. I've recently contributed to another scientific python project where many members of the community were aggressive in their reviews, without giving valuable feedback on PRs, so I value scikit-image's (& scikit-learn) community even more. > That's just the couple I've noticed, I'm sure there are lots more. We > definitely have many, many abandoned PRs from >1y, >2y ago. > > Obviously, something in our process isn't working. I don't have immediate > solutions, but here's a couple of suggestions: > > - we need a system to assign core devs to PRs/issues. Currently, it's too > easy for all of us to go, "someone else on the team will handle this". We > need a fair way to assign a manager to each issue/PR. The assigned dev > wouldn't necessarily be responsible for review, but they would be > responsible for chasing up other reviewers. > > - NEVER close a PR without the explicit consent of the contributor, OR after > the contributor has been non-responsive for e.g. 1mo and two pings. In this > last situation I would even suggest that we need two core devs to sign off. I would not close old PR, for the sake of closing them. If the contributor is not interested in finishing the contribution and the patch is almost ready, it might be a good way to introduce new contributors (/students) to the PR. This can probably be done by an "Need contributor" tag + "Easy fix", though I haven't thought more about this > Other suggestions welcome in this thread. We should try to get a new process > hammered out very soon. > > I also want to acknowledge @soupault for his triage/labelling work, which is > a massive step in the right direction. But we need to follow up his triage > with some actual process. > > Juan. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "scikit-image" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to scikit-image+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to scikit-image@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scikit-image/CA%2BJHcKSh-k%2ByM0yBTRzTy%3DZgY7%2BOoEmPkKNA4xUgudeyhCJ5Dw%40mail.gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scikit-image" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scikit-image+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to scikit-image@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scikit-image/CAE-UAvSnKid2zn9bM4%3DdU2mvG96jDg8%2BfTayEOw%3DTA%2BS4u27zg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.