Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
WEP0, a proposal for the WEP process #1
WEP0, a proposal for the WEP process #1
Changes from 1 commit
7f70525
26588a5
d0b7ff5
b44fc59
1cea2d6
decfc9d
574c541
d7b581c
14e3606
092f1d4
7770266
5d71e61
5c015ef
dd548b8
0287aff
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/reference/references/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should this be written in a more active voice, e.g. If you have an idea for , take the following steps:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is more the definition of the process, I think we'll grow a "how to" guide in the future as we get more process around it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it have to be a "new idea"?
If the WEP contains multiple proposals, I think that would come out in the discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we're going to judge things by any new-ness quality, it's more just a turn of phrase. Perhaps "process update" is more explicit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In the tech writing world, the word "new" is usually redundant. I vote we clean it up and just say "idea".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure we should even mention this. But if you think it's important, I'd like an explanation.
If I were a WEP author, I'd want to have as many "co-sponsors" as possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is a difference between "co-authors" and "co-sponsors". Co-authors are actively creating the WEP before it's submitted to community discussion, while co-sponsors should be enlisted during the discussion phase. The goal here is to distinguish ownership of the WEP creation and feedback implementation, and you probably don't want 10 people authoring the same WEP for logistical reasons :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we stole this from the PEP process, but I think the goal is to have a couple people responsible for shepherding it. If 5 people come together it becomes hard to figure out who is in charge and can make decisions. I think smaller is definitely better in terms of the proposal team, but not in terms of who looks at and reviews it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Appreciate the explanation. Then maybe s/on behalf of the co-authors/on behalf of all supporters of the WEP/
(The current text, to me, implies that support is limited to the authors)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wrote in a suggestion to expand this paragraph and differentiate between authors and supporters. Feel free to edit/adapt as needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd leave out "WEP is actionable and implementable"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed, it's a bit of a weird sentence, the second one is more clear 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/reviewer/WEP team/
(since anyone can review a PR, we should be specific)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is "tagged" here? Is this opening the PR in GitHub's draft status, a label on the PR, text in the WEP, or something else?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My understanding is this: https://github.com/writethedocs/weps/pull/1/files#diff-f47194e85dd085426bc962ab2fd3baf6R202
A GH action to parse that and set labels would be super cute.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that it boils down to labels that are manually assigned, rather than a draft state. Let's reword this to align with GH terminology.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That suggests the "reviewer" is different from the "WEP team", which upon first reading contradicts earlier text
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The term "reviewer" is defined in the first paragraph as "a WEP team member... reviews"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've added
WEP team reviewer
to be more explicit, which seems fine.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The "community review" is different from the "reviewer" who looks at scope and compliance? The redundancy in these terms is confusing me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yea, the WEP team does the initial review for acceptance, then the wider community will look at it and have input. There are effectively 2 stages of review.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've changed the language to
decided on
, since reviewed here I agree is ambiguous.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the passive voice here makes it hard to understand the process. Is this meant to be a characterization of the review discussion (e.g., community feedback leads to a negative consensus that the WEP should be rejected)? Or is this an independent conclusion of the WEP team (e.g., the WEP team reviews the final text and makes its own decision on whether its an improvement to the community)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The former, I'd say.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed that I think we meant the former. I guess we should have a state that is "rejected by the powers that be" -- perhaps
Vetoed
, which makes this more explicit?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not comfortable with a Veto option here, since it seems a bit contradictory to the consensus idea. I made a suggestion to reword the text to make it more explicit, maybe it'll solve the question.