Skip to content
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

Problem Solving Proposal #2

Merged
merged 11 commits into from Apr 16, 2019

Conversation

@AlexDaniel
Copy link
Member

commented Feb 25, 2019

Please leave feedback.

Resolves #1.

Rendered document can be seen here.

TODOs:

  • ask TimToady if they can be added as a responsible dev to the language label – they can add themselves later
  • find people for labels with no responsible devs see #2 (comment)
  • describe directory structure and naming conventions of the documents

@AlexDaniel AlexDaniel self-assigned this Feb 25, 2019

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 25, 2019

In order to reduce the issue spam required to populate the list of reviewers, please simply react with 👀 to this comment and I'll add you to the list of reviewers. If you have a commit bit, you should probably be on that list.

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 25, 2019

@JJ, @coke, documentation label currently has no responsible devs, please consider volunteering.

@ugexe same goes for modules, though I'm not sure what'd be the scope of that label. If you have some ideas, let me know. That said, there's no need to create all of the labels ahead of time, so we can delay some of that stuff until at least one ticket is created.

@JJ

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 25, 2019

Yep, count me in for documentation.

Show resolved Hide resolved README.md Outdated
@JJ

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 25, 2019

@ugexe

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 25, 2019

I agree we need a categorization of our SME (Subject Matter Experts). This should not be done in an opt-in way -- such a list should be available as a resource regardless. If some area is stuck because there is no associated SME or that SME is not participating then there should probably not be any significant changes made until someone learns the area to an acceptable degree such as to become an acting SME.

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 25, 2019

This should not be done in an opt-in way

I'd love to agree but I don't see how we can force people to do work. What's the alternative?

@ugexe

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 25, 2019

If some area is stuck because there is no associated SME or that SME is not participating then there should probably not be any significant changes made until someone learns the area to an acceptable degree such as to become an acting SME.

So there is no forcing the SME to do anything. The only time force is required is when the person making a proposal has no SME participating -- in this case the proposer is forced to learn significantly more to become a SME if they wish to further their proposal.

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 25, 2019

@ugexe OK, I see. That makes sense, thank you.

AlexDaniel added some commits Feb 25, 2019

Clean up the list of labels
Removed labels that have no domain expert assigned.
See #2 (comment)
Markdownify names properly
`@…` notation is not supported in .md files, so link manually.
@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 1, 2019

This PR is not getting appropriate attention, and one of the reasons for that could be that it is a new repo and people are no longer subscribed to new repos automatically. So I'm going to ping some people in order to make sure that everyone is aware of this.

Please keep in mind that if you don't react with 👀 your name won't be added to the list of reviewers, and in future you won't be notified about soon-to-be-merged proposals and your confirmation won't be required (which is totally fine if you're not interested in this, but if you're actively working on something related to the perl 6 project it's better to be on the list to make sure that upcoming changes will not disturb your efforts in unwanted ways).

@Benabik @FCO @FROGGS @Infinoid @MasterDuke17 @Mouq @TimToady @Util @arnsholt @bdw @bingos @clarkema @coke @colomon @cxreg @diakopter @gerdr @hankache @hoelzro @ingydotnet @japhb @jdhore @jnthn @kjs @kyleha @labster @lizmat @masak @mathw @mberends @moritz @niner @nunorc @particle @patrickas @peschwa @pmichaud @pmurias @retupmoca @samcv @sergot @sorear @stmuk @szabgab @tadzik @tbrowder @tene @usev6 @zhuomingliang

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 1, 2019

@ugexe I have thought about the terminology, but I don't think that “subject-matter expert” or “domain expert” describes people on these lists accurately. Of course, to be on that list, you most likely need to be an SME, but in my opinion that's not enough. There could be many rakudo experts, but in my view only one should be providing the direction where things should be going. Of course, they are free to delegate PRs, and they can also add more people if that is wanted. But just knowing a lot about a subject shouldn't be a reason to be added to the list. Does that make sense?

That being said, I'd love to use some existing term for that.

AlexDaniel added some commits Mar 2, 2019

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 5, 2019

@zoffixznet, by any chance, can you take a look at it? What do you think, does it solve anything? Or, more importantly, what does it not solve that needs to be solved?

Edit: To clarify, I'm thinking about perl6/user-experience#33 and related issues.

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Mar 12, 2019

Current plan: look at how things go with #3, make adjustments to the doc if needed and move to the review step on this PR asap.

AlexDaniel added some commits Apr 1, 2019

Better directory structure
Basically “solutions/[label]/[PR id, 5 digits] – [Name]”.

RT is barely over 6 digits, so more than 6 is definitely too much for
now. Python has a bit over 500 PEPs, so 4 digits could be
reasonable. However, the counter is incremented for every problem too,
not just for every solution (that's just how github works), so we
should double or triple the estimated amount. All things considered, 5
digits should be good enough for a long time, and as a bonus it makes
the numbers distinct from RT tickets, and also somewhat distinct from
Rakudo bugs because the id's will be padded with zeros.

The name is included because this way it is easier to find the
required document quickly (nobody is going to remember the numbers
anyway).

Not sure about spaces and “–”, but we can tweak that if there's an
issue.

The document will not define the directory structure and now it just
says that contributors should keep it consistent. I don't want to make
the document longer for such a tiny detail.

I decided to use solution id's instead of problem id's because one PR
can resolve more than one problem, and this way it's a bit more
straightforward.
@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 1, 2019

OK, there are already some issues and it looks like we'll get even more once we merge this. Let's get this thing going then.

@AlexDaniel AlexDaniel requested review from JJ, jnthn and masak Apr 1, 2019

@AlexDaniel AlexDaniel requested review from MasterDuke17, moritz, samcv, timo and ugexe Apr 1, 2019

@moritz

moritz approved these changes Apr 2, 2019

Copy link
Member

left a comment

It's not perfect, but it's the best we have. Kudos to @AlexDaniel for coming up with it, and all the work put into it!

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 8, 2019

About 7 days left to leave your reviews. Without any opposition it will go as is :)
@JJ @masak @timo @jnthn @ugexe @MasterDuke17 @samcv

@ugexe

ugexe approved these changes Apr 8, 2019

@jnthn

jnthn approved these changes Apr 16, 2019

Copy link
Member

left a comment

One tiny grammar tweak to suggest, but I'm happy with this.

affected areas are welcome to provide feedback. That being said, the
assignee has the final word on decisions in the issue/PR, so they are
free to engage in discussions as they see fit. In rare cases they can
moderate/lock the discussion if so is unavoidable.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jnthn

jnthn Apr 16, 2019

Member

if doing so is unavoidable

@AlexDaniel AlexDaniel merged commit 4bd3d90 into master Apr 16, 2019

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Apr 16, 2019

It has been 15 days, therefore merging it now. Thanks!

@AlexDaniel AlexDaniel added the meta label May 8, 2019

@AlexDaniel AlexDaniel deleted the 00000001 branch May 8, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.