#32 The ACG website on GitHub, and accepting edit requests
enhancement
Since this group is public, anyone can propose changes to the ACG website. Its structure will be maintained by reviewers so the webpage doesn’t crash, but the content will not be moderated. (However, see CONTRIBUTING.md and CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md.)
ACG history shows that it won’t take long before a large number of cranks start taking advantage of this free platform.
Therefore I propose to:
- let anyone propose changes through pull requests,
- accept changes only after there is sufficient interest (shown by positive or negative comments),
- if, after some long time, there is no interest, prune the branch.
The author of the changes should solicit comments on Discussions in a collaborative way.
To be defined:
- sufficient interest = at least one comment, or two reactions (e.g. “:+1:”, “:-1:”, etc.)
- long time = about one month.
1
I agree:
let people propose their changes via pull requests; encourage that instead of long discussions and debates about changing content (this usually curbs a bit of the fluff 😄).
assign reviewers from the pool of team members or repo collaborators
assign one or two gatekeepers to merge content after review
To streamline review, in time, you can use code owners for sections of the website that is “owned” by a designated collaborator, so that their review is automatically request for any changes that modifies the files they “own”.
In your list above, I would change the first bullet to
let anyone propose changes through pull requests, for clarity. You could set the bar at $\large n$ “👍🏻” on pull requests.Let’s see how it goes!
We don’t have team members nor repo collaborators 😉 Since anybody could potentially be interested in a particular pull request, it’s probably best to leave open the possibility of comments from anybody. Whoever merges the content does not have to agree with it but only make sure there is enough interest. Even if all n people say “it’s garbage”, that’s already a sign of interest!
Yes, I forgot. Everyone (with a github handle) can comment indeed. But reviewers of pull requests must be members of the organization. You can see that when you click on “reviewers” on a pull request (right sidebar). In this case, the reviewers could just provide technical oversight (cleanup commits and commit messages, etc.)
Note that you can still invite “external” reviewers by adding them as collaborators to the
acgrepo (under theacgsettings), where they can have whichever role:I haven’t learned and remembered all the words yet:
Sorry, by bad, indeed let’s wait until these things come up in time.