Add Governance Document#1836
Conversation
tpike3
commented
Oct 16, 2023
tpike3
commented
- Add governance document
- Convert contributing guideline from .rst to .md
- Update links in README
- Convert contributing guideline from .rst to .md - Update links in README
|
|
||
| Contributors engage with the project through the issue tracker, discussion board, discussion forum or by writing or | ||
| editing documentation. They submit changes to the project itself via pull requests and [following the contributing | ||
| guidelines](https://github.com/projectmesa/mesa/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.rst), which will be considered for inclusion in |
| * A response within 7 days. If you do not see a response, please send us a note on our [matrix channel](https://matrix.to/#/#project-mesa:matrix.org) | ||
| * A clear list or description of what is necessary for the code to be merged (as much possible) | ||
| * If a pull request is not merged after two rounds of substantive feedback from one committer and new committer will | ||
| volunteer to review and help the pull request be merged. THis is for substantive feedback and not administrative |
| @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ | |||
| # Mesa Governance | |||
| (adopted from OSS Watch - http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/meritocraticgovernancemodel ) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's simpler than https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/. At the other spectrum of simplicity, there is https://github.com/nvm-sh/nvm/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md. And there is https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/main/doc/source/dev/governance/governance.rst.
|
Thanks @tpike3 for putting these together! A couple of thoughts and questions: Linking back to why these documents are here, I'm more interested in how PRs are going to be reviewed and merged moving forward. In the new GOVERNANCE.md under Committers section, it says
If I understand this correctly, this means we'll change our current review process, so that another reviewer will work on the PR if it stills needs substantive feedback after two rounds of substantive feedbacks? In regards to how committers/maintainers are expected to treat and review PRs, there are more words, for example from Healthy Open Source, which mentioned things like
For NumPy there's also a reviewer guideline that looks pretty comprehensive. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, or suggesting that we should simply follow these guidelines. Just wondering what would be a best way for us to review future PRs : ) On a side note, I also want to use this opportunity to thank @rht for responding to almost everything in this project! |
3 participants
