Not enough clear expectations on quality and timing of spec and panel reviews
Opened this issue · 2 comments
We're seeing cases both on individual panels and also on solid/specification where there isn't clear definition from the process on when a given pull request can be merged, or the expected quality of that merge based on where it is in the the lifecycle.
Specifically:
- Simple changes shouldn't require too much process, or seemingly "side-step" the process
- When things are are in the drafting process, and the draft is still incomplete, there should be a premium on getting feedback in a timely fashion, to advance completion of the draft. Fuller and more in-depth review should always happen when a draft is complete and ready for them.
- There should be some general protections against having things stagnate without receiving timely review
- These expectations should be clear for both panel and solid/specification reviews.
Note that @csarven has proposed some ideas to address these issues.
Renamed this to distinguish from website concerns (#217/#222).
Ah yes this is really something quite different, and wasn't meant to be taken in the same context. A couple of examples are solid/authorization-panel#84 and solid/data-interoperability-panel#57, where we have drafts that are in-progress and incomplete, but we want quick and timely review that can be factored into the next batch of work already underway.