Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Initial Website working group proposal #10
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Initial Website working group proposal #10
Changes from 28 commits
812d3a9
5049cd5
15673f8
5e5bea1
02ebd0c
7948a8d
3c057b0
b83468a
4cd3a46
d17ba20
9bb86a7
b67af2d
d1a1def
8bb169d
e250616
0f205f7
7f6cdb5
06a804c
85a030a
9c5931e
957a6a1
5c64eb1
f1343ee
b3357d2
b0fde57
ac38a56
98d65ef
f098802
f6c3d93
ed29e9e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would like to see two additions:
Who has the right in the group to merge pull requests? Is it "chair / co-chair / board liaison", or "everyone" or "no one"?Who has the right to publish new content on the site?Edit: discussed on 2024-09-26 w/ 8 provisional WG members, see last comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think "everyone" is a particularly safe option. If we want to make it "everyone", the vetting process of adding someone as a member need to be more precise to ensure that nothing bad gets merged. Also, there needs to be a process to re-evaluate permissions if anyone feels like they need to leave the WG.
But I feel like the
django-com-maintainers
team who already have permission and are actively maintaining the website currently should still have the permission (unless they themselves don't want the permissions anymore).So here are few thoughts of mine:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ideally, I would say there should be an editorial WG team who handles publishing of content.
@sabderemane mentioned to me that there are multiple different teams who have the access and need the access to publish new content. From a strictly security perspective, I like the idea of Website WG not having permission to edit content (unless there are crossovers with other teams of course). Given we have a board liaison who I think already have permission to publish content being part of the Board, that should suffice in case there is a need to intervene.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO, the third option seems to be a good one, at least maintainers is not everyone and we don't have to restrict the access to be part of the working group. We can based the list on the current members who are part of the
django-com-maintainers
and add more members in the future if needed. We will need to define how to add a maintainer to the Maintainer team but I think it's not a prerequisite to kickstart this WG.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree on this, as it's replacement of the initial maintainers team, they actually don't have the write to publish content, only edit eventually content which is hardcoded in html.
I find quite interesting the idea of the editorial WG team, I'm not sure as a working group but this is a separate topic I will see as board member.
Yes 💯
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good to me too! Agree it’s not a blocker to starting the WG since we already have a maintainers team currently.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Permissions / access to resources:
@django/ops-team
on the pull request for deployment.Ops team will retain access, and in case there are site infrastructure issues, would be able to restrict permissions.
Other resources that are relevant but could be done ad-hoc:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sentry access to the (majority of) the group would be a great benefit. Maybe some of the group, chair/co-chair, having slightly different permission and having a sentry team defined.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We migrated developer and user mailing list to the Django Forum, so let's try to use the same platform for asynchronous communication (the preferred way as we can be in different time zones), but having the private Slack or Discord channel for synchronous communications in case of emergency, meetings or for faster interaction.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds great, particularly considering that section already exists! Website.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ronnzw this is the last thread about discussion spaces that is still open.