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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
community,wg,code-quality: establish working group code-quality #333
community,wg,code-quality: establish working group code-quality #333
Changes from 2 commits
8733238
16f7e1e
0f48f02
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.
nit: observability? testing? documentation?
which other SIGs do we currently have? :D
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.
This makes sense for now, based on SIGs with current charters, although SIG-observability has an open PR so it would be worth including them.
Is the intention to update this as other SIGs are formalised?
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.
This isn't important but it might be useful to have someone from
sig-storage
as a chair or liaison?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.
It will be great to have another chair, 3 sounds ideal.
The WG needs to communicate with other SIGs to apply some of its work items, however, we do not require representatives from SIGs to have a role in the WG. At least I do not see a reason for that.
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.
@lyarwood since all code producting SIGs are actual stakeholders in this effort, I am not sure how it helps to mention a sig-storage member as a liaison explicitly - what role would you think that sig-storage liaison needs to fulfill?
To be clear: I was just mentioning myself since I can help out fostering automation aspects wrt the subject. Maybe I should add that to the charter for clarity, as in where I see my participation as a liaison?
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.
(also since I am quite deeply involved in community matters, I am willing to help out to that regard)
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.
This was just a suggestion to help with initial communication out of the WG to the final active SIG in the list. As @EdDev said this isn't required and once things start moving forward with the WG I'm sure formal communication to all of the SIGs will be more than adequate.