README.md: contribution about discussion

[vbatts]

Leaning on aspects of golang's contribution
(https://golang.org/doc/contribute.html)

Signed-off-by: Vincent Batts [email protected]

[wking]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:04:00AM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

• README.md: contribution about discussion

This is missing the link to the YouTube channel and the discussion of
the 10-speaker limit which I'd proposed in #102. I think we should
point both of those out in whatever weekly-call documentation we
eventually land.

[vbatts]

eh? This is rebased on #102 which is in master now.

[wking]

I'd put the mailing-list section next to the IRC section. How about sorting channels to the front and usage to the back:

• Mailing List
• IRC
• Discuss your design
• Weekly Call

It would also be nice to standardize around “Title Case” or “Sentance case”, headers, since the current spec isn't very consistent there.

[vbatts]

Fair, though honestly, process of discussion comes first in my mind.

[wking]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:33:21PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

Fair, though honestly, process of discussion comes first in my mind.

Works for me.

[wking]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:53:07PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

eh? This is rebased on #102 which is in master now.

That rebase addresses 1, but the ordering I suggest in 2 applies
to the post-rebase version (1014b30). Or were you asking about
something else?

[vbatts]

@wking I think we're miscommunicating due to github freshness...

[wking]

Maybe “If there is a question” → “When in doubt”?

[wking]

Otherwise it could read like you're pushing all questions (some of which might be better off as issues) to the mailing list.

[vbatts]

fair

[wking]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:35:21PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

@wking I think we're miscommunicating due to github freshness...

Possibly. I'll try and quote enough context to avoid confusion in the
future.

I filed one minor rewording for 0088b64 1, and you might want to
replace ‘github’ with ‘GitHub’. But I don't feel strongly enough
about either to want to hold up on merging this PR.

[vbatts]

updated

[wking]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:58:53PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

updated

646cdf6 looks good to me, although on the pedantic-copy-edit front,
I just noticed a “google groups” potential capitalization fix 1.

[vbatts]

pedantic. That is the word. :-)

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:05 PM, W. Trevor King [email protected]
wrote:

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 01:58:53PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

updated

646cdf6 looks good to me, although on the pedantic-copy-edit front,
I just noticed a “google groups” potential capitalization fix 1.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#104 (comment).

[vbatts]

updated

[wking]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 02:10:45PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

pedantic. That is the word. :-)

Measure twice, cut once ;). Anyhow, 7c67d5d looks good to me.

[philips]

lgtm.

Aside: shall we informally agree to just finish off the current design discussions that are "in progress" on GitHub and say new stuff goes to the mailing list?

[vbatts]

Some verbiage is needed around github issues that are effectively proposals
or design discussions.
On Aug 11, 2015 00:10, "Brandon Philips" [email protected] wrote:

lgtm.

Aside: shall we informally agree to just finish off the current design
discussions that are "in progress" on GitHub and say new stuff goes to the
mailing list?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#104 (comment).

[wking]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:33:06PM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

Some verbiage is needed around github issues that are effectively proposals
or design discussions.

I think the proposed wording pushes proposals and design discussions
to the list. What more do you want to add?

And I think keeping existing issues on GitHub makes sense. Migrating
them to the list would just fragment discussion. This PR should just
apply to discussions that start after this PR lands.

[vbatts]

@wking not so much migrating them. Defining what role github issues is to play.

[wking]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:40:18AM -0700, Vincent Batts wrote:

@wking not so much migrating them. Defining what role github issues
is to play.

I think “Issues are used for bugs and actionable items and longer
discussions can happen on the mailing list” covers that pretty well.
If you're reporting a typo, confusing sentence, or bug (things leading
to a semver patch release), open an issue. If you're suggesting a
change in semantics (things leading to a semver major or minor
release), post to the list.

[philips]

nontrivial instead of not-trivial?

[vbatts]

fixed

[philips]

lgtm

[crosbymichael]

LGTM