Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Primary role owners should write monthly report comments on their respective role issues #13
Here are some examples:
I am proposing here that every primary role owner write a monthly report comment on the role(s) that they own (see #12 regarding the distinction between primary and secondary role owner).
The reasons for this are several:
So, to re-iterate: I propose that every primary role owner start writing monthly report comments starting with the next round of compensation requests that we will vote on from May 1–3rd.
If we have a rough consensus on this proposal by that time, I will vote
Also, I propose we continue with the format that has emerged for these comments, which is as follows:
Where the date obviously changes with each month, and the linked compensation issue is that role owner's current (draft) compensation request for the month. You can see the effect that this kind of round-trip referencing has between roles and compensation requests by looking at my request for this month at bisq-network/compensation#57.
I wanted to get this proposal together now, just as our May voting is finishing up, so everybody has plenty of time to consider it prior to the next voting round. Thanks, all.
(See also this month's Roles Maintainer role update, where I first suggested that we institutionalize this process of writing monthly updates: bisq-network/roles#28 (comment))
changed the title from
Primary role owners write monthly report comments on their respective role issues
Primary role owners should write monthly report comments on their respective role issues
Apr 6, 2018
referenced this issue
Apr 6, 2018
I agree basically but have the feeling that it would require (at least for me) quite a bit of time which might be better used elsewhere. Maybe it is like with the role specs just a bit too early to enforce those more strict rules. For certain roles though it makes more sense than for others for sure. So for now I stay neutral to that proposal. Concept-ACK but not timing-ACK... ;-)
I agree with the proposal as I think it will help anyone who wants to take over a role later to be able to see what is required on a monthly basis. Also it is kind of an intermediary step if there is no exact role description available to think about what makes sense to add to the role description based on the monthly reports.
This was referenced
Apr 26, 2018
Closing as accepted, with 5
@ManfredKarrer, thanks for giving this a try this month, despite your concerns about it being too time consuming. Everyone else has taken this on as well, and while there remain rough edges to smooth out, we can do that over the voting periods to come. I continue to have ideas about how to streamline this as we go (I desperately need that streamlining as well, while I still have so many roles on my plate).
In any case, I'll capture the decisions made here in the forthcoming Roles at bisq-network/bisq-docs#46.