Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 8, 2023. It is now read-only.

proposal: Create Working Group Repo badges #824

Merged
merged 41 commits into from
Feb 5, 2019
Merged

Conversation

daviddias
Copy link
Member

For easier identification which WG owns the repo and the url to the entrypoint of the WG.

@ghost ghost assigned daviddias Jan 4, 2019
@ghost ghost added the status/in-progress In progress label Jan 4, 2019
@daviddias
Copy link
Member Author

daviddias commented Jan 4, 2019

What do folks think about this proposal? If accepted, we would add these badges to the top of each repo.

//cc @ipfs/wg-captains

@ghost ghost assigned momack2 Jan 8, 2019
@meiqimichelle
Copy link
Contributor

What do folks think about this proposal? If accepted, we would add these badges to the top of each repo.

I don't think we should do this because:

  • We'd essentially be re-stating a Working Group name in an abbreviation that doesn't spell out the entire name -- so, making it harder for a newcomer to understand our structure. Also, this would be one more thing to keep updated if/when we change WG names (or the way we write them -- ie, is it GO LANG or go-lang or GO-LANG etc).

  • If the main point is to help people who land on repos understand our structure/where the 'home page' for that work is, we can do that just as easily by writing the full name of the working group in the repo linked to the home page. That way, people won't have to parse an abbreviation, and we can also have a sentence with a bit of context if needed. Just putting a badge without explanation won't accomplish our communication goals.

@daviddias
Copy link
Member Author

daviddias commented Jan 10, 2019

We'd essentially be re-stating a Working Group name in an abbreviation that doesn't spell out the entire name

Not sure if I understand this comment. Are you saying that putting WG and not Working Group on the first half of the badge that is creating obstacle for it to be useful? I'm fine changing it to full Working Group :)

Update: I updated it. Let me know how it looks :)

@meiqimichelle
Copy link
Contributor

I mean we'd be turning Decentralized Data Stewardship Working Group into WG | DDS -- the whole thing gets abbreviated. It would be clearer just to write out the whole thing rather than substituting badges.

@daviddias
Copy link
Member Author

@meiqimichelle I believe that after the first time they click on the abbreviation, they get the full name of the Working Group and remember it. Humans are great at learning things.

@daviddias daviddias added the P2 Medium: Good to have, but can wait until someone steps up label Jan 15, 2019
TEAM_STRUCTURES.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
TEAM_STRUCTURES.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-Authored-By: daviddias <daviddias.p@gmail.com>
@meiqimichelle
Copy link
Contributor

@daviddias I don't agree that humans are great at learning things. We spend most of our time parsing and forgetting things we don't need to remember. But regardless of that point, my original critiques stand:

  • This makes it harder for a newcomer to understand our structure because we'd essentially be re-stating a Working Group name in an abbreviation that doesn't spell out the entire name -- so, making it harder for a newcomer to understand our structure.

  • This is adding maintenance overhead because this would be one more thing to keep updated if/when we change WG names (or the way we write them -- ie, is it GO LANG or go-lang or GO-LANG etc).

  • If the main point is to help people who land on repos understand our structure/where the 'home page' for that work is, a lighter-weight implementation would be writing the full name of the working group in the repo linked to the home page. That way, people won't have to parse an abbreviation, and we can also have a sentence with a bit of context if needed. Just putting a badge without explanation won't accomplish our communication goals.

@daviddias
Copy link
Member Author

This makes it harder for a newcomer to understand our structure

Makes it harder in comparison to what it is today? I don't understand that

This is adding maintenance overhead

See this note -- #824 (comment) --, tl;dr; to prevent that, we would host the badges in a single location, so that the change in one (color, name, etc) would reflect automatically.

a lighter-weight implementation would be writing the full name of the working group in the repo linked to the home page.

What about doing both?

terichadbourne and others added 25 commits February 5, 2019 06:21
- Added video links to the call recording and Teri's presentation
- Edited/added Q&A notes
- Add notes from 1/17 meeting of IFPS Community Working Group
- Add Community WG to the list of working groups with weekly syncs.
- Clarify a few details in meeting notes
* Notes for the IPFS Community Call 2019-1-28

* Added Youtube link next to video heading
* Create 2019-01-28--js-core-dev-team-weekly.md

* Update 2019-01-28--js-core-dev-team-weekly.md
* Added how to save zoom call chats in faq

* Minor formatting
* Add 2019-01-30--gui-and-in-web-browsers-weekly.md

* Update 2019-01-30--gui-and-in-web-browsers-weekly.md

* chore: apply suggestions from code review

Co-Authored-By: fsdiogo <fsdiogo@gmail.com>
* Create 2018-12-12-to-2019-01-15.md

Standup notes

* Rename 2018-12-12-to-2019-01-15.md to 2018-12-12-to-2019-01-15--cluster-meeting-archive.md
@daviddias
Copy link
Member Author

Merging this so that I can complete #822

@daviddias daviddias merged commit 18a4237 into master Feb 5, 2019
@daviddias daviddias deleted the proposal-badges branch February 5, 2019 05:27
@ghost ghost removed the status/in-progress In progress label Feb 5, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
P2 Medium: Good to have, but can wait until someone steps up
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.