Thanks, Rich. I hope others will jump in and improve the use cases, ideally illustrated with some publicly viewable links or summaries by people like @Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> and @Ted Dunning <[email protected]> who have helped communities through challenges in the past.
Phil On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 6:54 AM Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Phil. Patches applied. This is all good stuff. > > — > Rich Bowen > [email protected] > > > > > > On Feb 12, 2024, at 5:21 PM, Phil Steitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry, last message got away from me. The point of the use cases is to > get > > a rough consensus of the kinds of things that a Sharpener will work on. > > Ideally, these get a) fixed / better organized and b) fleshed out with > > useful links, suggestions and scope of engagement statements. > > > > So for example, if "barriers to contribution" survives, we get into what > is > > / is not OK for a sharpener to suggest and when it is actually a problem. > > More concretely, consider the case where "some people" think that project > > Foo has an impossibly high bar for commit. How do you work out what that > > means? How is it impacting the community? Both "not a problem" and > "yes, > > this is a problem" examples could be added, as well as some info on what > > the Sharpener is allowed to question / how deeply they should engage in > > tweaking internal PMC processes. > > > > Phil > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 3:08 PM Phil Steitz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> OK, I added a brain dump on the use cases. This is in the spirit of > "good > >> ideas, bad code" ;) >
