Add a 'current-work' location to allow people to highlight current areas of focus or interest #250
Conversation
…eas of focus or interest Resolves json-schema-org#249
Relequestual
force-pushed
the
focus-list
branch
from
2dd36db
to
f43212a
Compare
|
(At the high level certainly seems like a reasonable thing to do given we're working full-time) Re: "too-manual" which apparently was brought up on the call that discussed this -- how often was the thought to update this / how granular of info were we going to give? If it's "once every few weeks with a mid-level area of focus" that seems ok to me to self-report (though of course tools may be nice for people too). If it's more granular ("what did you work on yesterday") doing that manually does sounds tedious and may mean we each need to use one (or agree on a collective one). For an opinion -- if we're testing this out and trying to just make sure we're all open about areas we're working on, seems we certainly could start with more of the former than the latter. |
|
@Julian it's intended to be a top-3 thing so that folks who aren't necessarily watching every notification can check and see what's worth looking at without slogging through 200 emails. So right now my top 3 would be the JRI PR in the referencing repo, the "Making annotation collection practical" discussion, and the "Behavior negotiation: Balancing author intent and runtime flexibility" discussion, I might make the JRI entry just point to the repository or to issues/PRs there with the "jri" tag so I don't have to change it when the JRI PR is merged. So I'd say probably a weekly update at most, but as you can see all of mine are more than a week old, and two of them are much older. |
|
In a rarity for me, I think for this it is better to just direct-commit. I suppose there's a chance of accidentally deleting someone's entry, but that should be noticed fairly quickly and isn't the end of the world by any stretch. We don't really need the noise of nudging each other to review/merge PRs on things that we are defining for ourselves. Let's just pick an order (alphabetical by.. first name? last name? github username?) and update the file directly unless/until that causes problems. |
|
I need to revise the above. This is inaccurate. |
OK, I'll modify the language. I think I agree. |
Relequestual
requested review from
gregsdennis,
jdesrosiers,
Julian and
karenetheridge
and removed request for
karenetheridge
current-work/README.md
Outdated
| ## About | ||
| ### What is this space? | ||
|
|
||
| During an [Open Community Working Meeting](https://github.com/json-schema-org/community/issues/244), it was suggested that we could have a place for the core team (and maybe active community members?) to log their current areas of focus or interest in the form of GitHub Issues, Pull Requests, and Discussions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we change "log their current areas of focus or interest" to "indicate which areas of their work most require attention from the core team members"?
current-work/README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Why? | ||
|
|
||
| We concluded there was a LOT of activity taking place, and it was hard to get people to focus on the "important things". It is indeed hard to focus on priority items when there are many new GitHub Issues and Discussions each week, especially for those who are community members or not working on JSON Schema full or even part time. It was suggested that by asking for one to three items of priority, we might find it easier to draw attention where we feel it is needed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd change 'focus on the "important things"' to 'respond to the most immediately important things' or something of that sort. This is about responding to each other, rather than priorities in general.
current-work/README.md
Outdated
| #### How should the file be updated? | ||
|
|
||
| Initially, it's expected that only those who are actively contributing should look at or add items to the list. | ||
| To add items to the list, either make commits directly in this repo. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove "either". We should probably emphasize that pushing commits to this repo for any other file remains (forbidden? discouraged? subject to process X? idk what the right statement is).
| **Link:** [Link to Github Issue, Pull Request, or Discussion]<br/> | ||
| **What?:** [The most simplest basic explanation of what the thing is about. Think a single tweets length or less.]<br/> | ||
| **Why does it matter?:** [Pitch why people should care about this too. Why do you care about it?]<br/> | ||
| **What can we do?:** [What would you like us to do in relation to this thing?]<br/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a situation where this is anything other than "look at it and respond"? This question feels like unnecessary boilerplate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, it could be you want someone to review the PR, or maybe you just want thoughts so far. Maybe you're looking to tackle one last bit relating to a specific comment. If it's a Discussion, it might be a specific thread you want people to reply to. IDK. Assumptions bad.
If we find it not useful, we can remove it later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I want something specific looked at I'll say so in the entry. This line just feels like an annoyance and I don't plan to include it in my entries. This is supposed to be the easiest possible process for us to draw attention however we need it. I really don't like boilerplate - I'm not going to block the PR over it, but I don't like it.
As per Henry's suggestions in reviewing PR json-schema-org#250
Relequestual
requested review from
handrews
and removed request for
karenetheridge
Resolves #249
GitHub Issue: #249
Summary: Add two files, one which explains the purpose of logging current areas of interest, and another to contain them.
Do you think resolving this issue might require an Architectural Decision Record (ADR)? (significant or noteworthy)
No
It's a new thing we are testing which is open to change based on feedback.