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

Initiative refactor #446

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor

This build on top of #445 and restructures how we layout strategic
initiatives. By breaking it out of a table we will be able to include
much more details.

One of the added details here is the inclusion of stakeholders,
individuals outside of the champion who are actively involved in
an initiative. I have only added these for Modules at this time
but we should like expand this before landing.

The hope is that this will improve communication and discoverability
as well as offer a new opportunity to recognize significant work.

Refs: #442

/cc @bmeck @guybedford @jkrems and @targos to get consent to include them as stakeholders for modules

@jkrems
Copy link

jkrems commented Dec 15, 2017

Thanks! Happy to be included here. :) </consented>


### Champion

[James Snell][jasnell]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I should be included as stakeholder here, and probably the rest of the the @nodejs/http2 team.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@MylesBorins MylesBorins Dec 15, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added you as a stakeholder. I'd like to get explicit consent before adding individuals to the list.

Do you think we should add teams in here too as it's own section?

@guybedford
Copy link

Yes, I’d be glad to be involved!

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Dec 16, 2017

What are the criteria to be a stakeholder?

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ljharb currently they have been identified by champions or self nominated and approved by champion

A definition of these roles and how they are decided would be good.

## Error Messages

### Champion
[James Snell][jasnell]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would like to be a stakeholder of the error message initiatives, thanks

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would like to be a stakeholder for the error messages as well. @joyeecheung @jasnell Is that fine for you? :-)

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

Should we set up teams for initiatives that don't have a related team yet? It would be easier to ping people for reviews and discussions.

@MylesBorins MylesBorins changed the title Initiatve refactor Initiative refactor Dec 20, 2017
Copy link
Member

@mhdawson mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the concept. Visually it could use better separation between each of the initiatives where the details are (line, box around etc. )

I'm wondering if "leads" is a good replacement for stakeholders.

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

mhdawson commented Feb 8, 2018

@MylesBorins are you going to be able to get back to this so we can land?

This build on top of nodejs#445 and restructures how we layout strategic
initiatives. By breaking it out of a table we will be able to include
much more details.

One of the added details here is the inclusion of stakeholders,
individuals outside of the champion who are actively involved in
an initiative. I have only added these for `Modules` at this time
but we should like expand this before landing.

The hope is that this will improve communication and discoverability
as well as offer a new opportunity to recognize significant work.

Refs: nodejs#442
@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

rebased.

@mhdawson I'm imagining stakeholders could be internal or external, so I'm not sure leads works.

Could you perhaps push an example commit about alternative layout?

[Bradley Farias][bmeck]
[Guy Bedford][guybedford]
[Jan Olaf Krems][jkrems]
[Michaël Zasso][targos]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: two spaces at the end of each line

## Error Messages

### Champion
[James Snell][jasnell]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would like to be a stakeholder for the error messages as well. @joyeecheung @jasnell Is that fine for you? :-)


### Important Links

* [Tracking issue on main repo](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/11273)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That is actually outdated. Currently there is no real tracking issue. We still have a lot of errors in C++ that have to be ported, so we might want to open a tracking issue for that.

Besides that I also want to suggest some bigger changes to the errors soon.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@BridgeAR There is a tracking issue for C++ -> JS errors: nodejs/node#18106

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

MylesBorins commented Feb 18, 2018 via email


[Myles Borins][MylesBorins]

### Stakeholders
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel like we should just point to the whole modules team lol


### Important Links

* [initial pull request](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/16414)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please have the primary link be to https://github.com/Fishrock123/bob for the current time.

This PR is linked to from some issues there, but is vastly out of date compared to anything in the repo.

* [Tracking issue on TSC repo](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/383)


## New Streams APIs
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is... probably not all that indicative of what we are doing.

Future "Streams" implementation & API may be more accurate.

@fhinkel
Copy link
Member

fhinkel commented Apr 23, 2018

ping @MylesBorins, do we still want to land this?

@MylesBorins
Copy link
Contributor Author

We can close for now an revisit later

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.