setting a direction falls short of what we're already doing: guide contributors.
the direction aspect is still important, as that is the authoritative part. guidance is the supportive part.
linking to the discourse category will by default show a view sorted by
most recent post, which makes it hard to find particular meeting notes.
this also adds a procedural detail about the notes, to make that more
explicit and less dependent on being present in the meetings.
this addresses that we're too often running into open-ended discussions
about attempts to solve problems where neither the problem nor the
solution is well-understood enough to make decisions in a reasonable
amount of time.
this also prevents us from doing more work asynchronously.
Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
in order to make the development process more transparent for everyone,
all pull requests should go through the triage process before getting
merged.
this ensures that all team members are aware of what is going on, and
that rationale for decisions is kept track of in the meeting notes for
posterity. (ideally all that should go into the commit history, but this
is a more invasive process change that needs further deliberation.)
having all team members take at least a brief but conscious look at each
change may also help with keeping our quality standards, as more
reviewers are more likely to remind each other of our shared values.
PRs that don't increase our ongoing obligations (i.e. by adding new
features) but do increase test coverage of existing features are good
things to merge for the health of the project, and thus good to
prioritize.
so far there were no even remotely measurable objectives, only a general
purpose statement.
this change is intended to focus the team's work on what I (and many
others I talked to) perceive to be the main pain point in the
development process.
Co-authored-by: solene.rapenne@tweag.io
John has been part of every meeting since the beginning.
He took on a lot of work on behalf of the team, and provided useful suggestions in discussions, advocating for stability, reasonable design decisions, and maintainable code.
He was in general highly productive within the team process, and repeatedly helped us to keep focus on our stated goals.
Specifically, early on he suggested to gather more experience with the team reviews in order derive our values for the project encode a more structured approach to guiding contributions, which is slowly bearing fruit these days.
John is already the contributor with the most code changes to date (only topped by principal author Eelco), and is well-known to be highly knowledgeable about both high-level design and low-level internals of the code base.
He has continued to offer high quality work during the team's operation, which resulted in many pull requests getting merged that further the team's goals.
It is due time for John to be come an official team member and be granted merge access that he will surely exercise with the great care he is known for.
write down the process we have been developing and following so far.
Co-Authored-By: Théophane Hufschmitt <theophane.hufschmitt@tweag.io>
Co-Authored-By: John Ericson <John.Ericson@Obsidian.Systems>
This also makes sure that we get the Docker images from the same Hydra
eval, rather than the latest build from job/nix/.../dockerImage, which
may not be the same.
