-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 187
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
update requirements for stage 0 and stage 1 on the agenda document #722
Comments
Strong +1. On mentoring: in the March 2020 meeting I plan to formally "charter" the incubation calls, which I think would be a good mentoring venue for newer members who might be unsure of what materials would be appropriate for each stage. |
Since this is just "a repo with some explanation", and not slides, this seems like it's documenting the primary convention we've already been following. |
I too have wished this were already the case—let's make it happen! |
Ah, thanks for the history - in that case perhaps a PR to the process document is the first step, and then updating the agenda to match would be perfunctory? |
I've added this to the agenda, so we can get consensus on it next week: 205e270 |
I am not sure what we should do about proposals requesting entrance to stage 0. Can't remember the last time we had one? |
I don't think we need to worry about it as much; if someone puts a stage 0 item on the agenda, with no materials, and not seeking advancement, it would be reasonable imo for the chairs to reach out and require materials, to ensure that our plenary time is well-managed. |
We have been finding it difficult to review proposals that have no materials. Sometimes this happens with stage 1 proposals, as there is no strict requirement that they have materials present before the 10 day deadline. It is pretty rare that a stage 1 proposal does not advance, so having materials present isn't as crucial as for later stages. However, if all we have to go by is a title, it is difficult to prepare for the meeting in advance, or have preliminary discussions with champions. This in the end results in a less productive discussion during plenary.
How do people feel about changing the stage 1 requirement in the agenda template to having a ready repo with the proposal written out in prose, and a clear problem statement? This can be generated from the proposal template. We can help newer members adjust though mentoring.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: