You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The content of current work file should highlight organization's priorities that currently require attention
A note on governance and vision work, re last call - Booking a call with OpenJS Foundation - Research on current governance structures of other projects with assistance from Postman's OTPO (Open Technologies Programs Office!) - Propose using Sheriff and that all org members can see the repo
Promotion required to bring more people to provide feedback on the spec.
SDLC Discussion from last call Should deprecated features be included directly in the spec or someplace else? Should we deprecate keywords at all if we don't plan to ever remove them? Should we use semantic names rather than numbered stages?
To handle exceptional cases deprecation is a possibility Numbered stages make for a quick start and can be modified with semantic names
Highlights
All items on the agenda were reviewed.
Before call to order, @gregsdennis shared updates on implementation of dropped annotion in his library. In that context, performance of proposed changes was discussed as well.
Governance, Spec and SDLC updates were shared and discussed.
Actions
Create a file and process, to help hightlight and get attention to org's priorities
Promote to get feedback on the spec
Take a look at Sheriff, the permission and general org management tool
There was some confusion over the original intent of the "current concerns" list. Ben forgot or got confused over if it was a "currently working on this" list vs the original intent. The original intent was to allow individuals in the core team to bring attention to specific GitHub Issues, PRs, Discussions, because they require specific actions such as requiring review.
PR 250 was updated to reflect the original intent as opposed to the confused message.
Governance
OpenJS foundaction call is in the works.
Postman OTPO has been requested to provide research on governance structures. Both OpenJS and Postman's reply is expected to provide selective options to pick from and act as a guide.
The above has already helped in clarifying distinction between an advisory committee and community champion and heroes program.
Regarding Sheriff it is agreed that governance process needs working out before a tool is settled upon. Consideration of tool is deferred for later.
Spec
Currently awaiting more people to provide feedback on the spec proposals and further discussion to be had.
Discussion on, keeping the references $ref as they are and/or to add a new keyword. The two approaches were discussed and feedback is seeked.
SDLC
With regards to deprecation of keywords it was decided that it should be available as an option to handle exceptional cases.
Place of deprecated features is a presentational issue to be decided later.
Regarding stages, categorizing behavior of implementers and users at certain stages can be used as semantic naming. Although, numbered stages would be faster to begin working under and can be modified when need be, by pre/post fixing of semantic names.
📺 See Recording
⏪ Go To Previous Meeting
Agenda
current work
file should highlight organization's priorities that currently require attention- Booking a call with OpenJS Foundation
- Research on current governance structures of other projects with assistance from Postman's OTPO (Open Technologies Programs Office!)
- Propose using
Sheriff
and that all org members can see the repoBoth OpenJS and Postman to provide guidance.
Sheriff
, process to be worked out before a tool is settled on.Should we ask OpenJS Foundation to promote asking for feedback?
Should we invite everyone to go review the proposals?
Should deprecated features be included directly in the spec or someplace else?
Should we deprecate keywords at all if we don't plan to ever remove them?
Should we use semantic names rather than numbered stages?
Numbered stages make for a quick start and can be modified with semantic names
Highlights
Actions
Sheriff
, the permission and general org management toolAttendees
Details
PR 250
There was some confusion over the original intent of the "current concerns" list. Ben forgot or got confused over if it was a "currently working on this" list vs the original intent. The original intent was to allow individuals in the core team to bring attention to specific GitHub Issues, PRs, Discussions, because they require specific actions such as requiring review.
PR 250 was updated to reflect the original intent as opposed to the confused message.
Governance
advisory committee
andcommunity champion and heroes
program.Sheriff
it is agreed that governance process needs working out before a tool is settled upon. Consideration of tool is deferred for later.Spec
$ref
as they are and/or to add a new keyword. The two approaches were discussed and feedback is seeked.SDLC
Reference links
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: