adding contributing.md #14
Conversation
parispittman
requested review from
carolynvs,
idvoretskyi,
justaugustus and
mattklein123
|
This document seems to be missing a bunch of links. That is, you have a bunch of terms in [brackets] with no attached links. What's going on there? |
|
@jberkus They are in the bottom of the file - https://github.com/cncf/sig-contributor-strategy/pull/14/files#diff-6a3371457528722a734f3c51d9238c13R122 |
| [README]. | ||
|
|
||
| We don’t sponsor specific company branded documentation and resources as | ||
| official guidance to contributors and/or projects. A resources list[link tbu] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[link tbu]
I think this is the only link missing here @parispittman
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that will be dependent on #15
|
Huh, didn't even know you could do that. |
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
| community and governance spaces and/or roles in your project to do this work at | ||
| an operational level | ||
| - Join us for a Contributor Strategy AMA on the 4th Thursday meeting of each month | ||
| at the last :30 minutes as you need. This is your time to ask us general or |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion instead: "on the 4th Thursday every month at 10am Pacific / 1700 UTC". Any incarnation of "the last 30 min of the meeting" is going to be hard to parse.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was trying to manage that we will need time to do general sig discussions and triage. what about: "Join us for a Contributor Strategy AMA on the 4th Thursday meeting of each month. We'll do a general SIG update and discussion in the beginning and then the floor is yours to ask us anything....[finish the statement]"
|
Left a few comments, but they are all ignorable since this is clearly a WIP form of the document. Do let me know if this is the place where we talk about approval/merge rules, though, because if so I'd like to draft some. |
| [SIG]: https://github.com/cncf/toc/tree/master/sigs | ||
| [README]: https://github.com/cncf/sig-contributor-strategy/blob/master/README.md | ||
| [charter]: https://github.com/cncf/sig-contributor-strategy/blob/master/CHARTER.md | ||
| [working groups]: https://github.com/cncf/sig-contributor-strategy/blob/master/README.md#working-groups |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For now we use the term subproject in the header, so let's make the link work and fix up in a follow-up PR on any other documents (readme/charter)
| [working groups]: https://github.com/cncf/sig-contributor-strategy/blob/master/README.md#working-groups | |
| [working groups]: https://github.com/cncf/sig-contributor-strategy/blob/master/README.md#subprojects |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is more of a cncf question. the sub groups of cncf sigs are using the term working groups and i think our group gets them confused because we say subprojects in k8s. @amye does this matter? can we use subprojects instead of working groups?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
https://github.com/cncf/toc/blob/master/sigs/cncf-sigs.md#responsibilities--empowerment-of-sigs -- Working groups are preferred, per charter.
parispittman
force-pushed
the
contributing
branch
2 times, most recently
from
012f815
to
0a202d9
Compare
|
one open item and we are good to go for merge, imo: working groups or subprojects and does cncf/toc care which one we use? cc/ @amye @mattklein123 |
|
/lgtm |
i already see some formatting nits that I want to change to space things out a bit so they aren't blocks of text. for your review, crew! 🚀
(this PR will stay open for 48 hours unless all chairs and working group facilitators have weighed in already)