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
Reply type which sets the 'leader' of an issue #169
Feedback from Cyclescape feedback page:
Contributors should be able to declare their intended role within a thread.
E.g on , and , I would describe myself as 'Leading', whereas on many other threads I'm just observing to be kept in the loop.
I'd suggest these roles:
By having such a listing it will give thread leaders a good idea of how much support they have, and for those following a temptation to upgrade their status.
I think there is a very clear case for a leader, mainly so that there is a clear line of responsibility - someone that people can point to if nothing seems to be happening, so that things can then be moved on.
However, I'm not so sure about doer and follower.
A doer can just do things, by replying. Though I can perhaps see the value of something which lets people indicate "I can help out in some way" - though in a larger discussion involving lots of activities on an issue (e.g. writing a letter, organising a meeting, creating leaflets) these are all different skills, so such a status might actually create more confusion. What do people think?
In terms of followers, by default people are followers by virtue of being subscribed to the thread and not doing anything. In practice I can't see that there is much incentive for people to indicate "I'm not doing anything, just following" - there would be very few people marked with this status.
Yes, that's fine. I think that's all that's come up in recent discussions - I agree that in retrospect the other types seem over-complex. We should put in Leader and I can then seek feedback from the group once that's in place.
I haven't been given a clear spec by the group, so I think we should probably keep this simple and just allow anyone to self-declare themselves, and allow more than one. I think that if two or even three people come forward and declare themselves as co-leaders, that is a positive thing in that it shares the load a bit.
@roxannedebeaux is good at these kinds of process things and may have suggestions.
I would forsee an interface as follows:
Do you think that would work?
If this doesn't prove enough we can put more controls in place, but I think this would be a workable first iteration and I suspect will work fine for the long term.
I think this is a good move forward.
One thing I would really like to see is a floating box on each cyclescape thread with the most important details including:
This box should always be visible even when scrolling down the thread. The way I use cyclescape makes it hard to find these relevant details without scrolling up and down the thread.
I think there are also next steps after applying these features which is being able to allocate tasks on a critical path. The role of leader will be important in this.
I will need to let this idea marinate for a while and think about how to use the 'leader' feature and what requirements there may be.
+1 for @roxannedebeaux's 'floating box' idea, although ideally the confusion caused by having 1) an issue title; 2) an issue description; and 3) a first discussion post (as described in #587) should be tackled first or simultaneously.
+1 for most of @mvl22's suggestions too...
More importantly, I think people should 'Offer to lead on this issue' then a committee member should approve/choose the leader. Perhaps a simple way to implement this initially would be to only allow committee members to be the leader of an issue.
But -1 for adding "They will take on responsibility [... then text same as above for consistency]" to each reply/email as I feel this is better detailed once, elsewhere, eg with a pop-up and/or link on the text "Leader" in the 'floating box'
I think this should be avoided - it basically militates against ordinary membership getting more involved, which is surely something most groups would want more of. If it becomes a problem, a second iteration could add more controls, but my hunch is it won't be.
I was suggesting this happens only once - when it happens. This is about e-mails to other people. Without this, people who use the site via e-mail would be disadvantaged, and this breaks the consistency with all other reply types.
A simple control could be the ability for committee members to "de-select" the leader of an issue. I hope this would never be needed but can envisage times - eg if an issue leader becomes ill, busy or uninterested - when it'd be useful.
To clarify, it's only the extra "They will take on responsibility [... then text same as above for consistency]" text I was giving a -1 to. I support the suggestion to send an email with the "Jane Smith set themself as the Leader of this issue" section.
I've had a look at the pull request - thanks.
Well it seems to work, but I remain of the view that the UI isn't really right. It's hidden in the top-right and I think only a determined person will really discover it.