Video details

Package Maintenance Team meeting - June 16 2020



Hey, so welcome to the No GST package maintenance team meeting for June 16th, 2020. We'll follow the issue which was tagged in the issue that was generated in the repo. Before we get started. Does anybody have any announcements that they'd like to share? I guess one thing. And maybe we're skipping a little head. But it would be good to let people know that we're planning a session at the collaborative summit. I haven't looked at the schedule to see exactly what it is, but. I think the schedule is out. And so if people are interested, it'll be great place and time to come and learn a little bit more about the work of this group. OK. So let's move on to the issues which were tagged for the agenda. The first one is number 368 became G.S. Housekeeping Authors, license files, maintenance issues, 368. As you opened that one. Yeah, we had a very short discussion there regarding what do we put into the copyright, right. And I'm not sure if we ever came to a conclusion there. And also I think I have one remaining question there. And then we also had a question whether we need the author's file itself. And I'm not sure whether we had a conclusion there either. I would like. Where what we put into the copyright. So what was the lie? The remaining question on that front? So I think what Brian said is copyright notices are not mandatory. In order for the contributor to retain ownership of their copyright. So I think what this effectively means is that. We can put down whatever we like, but the copyright belongs to whoever it belongs. It's nice for the person looking into the license file, I guess, to know who these people are. Yeah. So I guess I guess there is a point of theft and maybe for communication. But I think one of the questions there. My particular question is whether we need to put down specific project name contributors or whether it's enough to just put down the word contributors or no G.S. contributors. Right. Because at the end of the day, this comes under the No. G.S. order organization, which means that for all kind of know G.S. community contributors. Right. Except the is there a list of contributors somewhere? Authors. Because there is an author's file. Right in the neck repo, right, and I'm just like, that's not include necessarily the people on the PCH guesswork. Correct. So, yeah, it. If we linked to that file, right? I'm just thinking like, though, if you say no GST contributors, who else? What other list or group would you think it is in? I had to work. Like I said, there is that this is a maintenance burden that needs to be usually only done once or when the report is created. Yeah, whatever. This is in a broader organization. This is something that needs to be regularly verified, that it is still the case and that all the things are correct and then in place, which is a burden. And I would very much like to avoid that burden for people who will come after me. Yeah, I think it would be nice. Like, as you said, since GitHub tracks things. Like, it would be nice to potentially just say. Now, I guess the only challenge is like to get up. There's no team that's going to necessarily reflect this. Yeah. So Jordan suggests that even possibly the unqualified words contributors is potentially good enough. And then we can maybe add a link. If we add a link, then it needs to be a repository link unless it links. Inside the same repository. I mean, the issue, the. Yeah. Then get it. Yeah. It's basically like if you if you have a list that's not something that's automatically generated, you've got maintenance somewhere. Right. See, this does have the contributors list, and that's how everybody looks like it has everybody. Is there a way to. Do a generic link to the contributors phage that does not have the full euro. However, in that case, if somebody forks, it will link to their contributor's thing. But that will also be generated automatically. All right. Yeah, you're right. Because GitHub does generate the contributors. I think that that seems like a good way to go because that is automatically maintained for us. Right. And is accurate. Yeah, I think that that like that's basically self maintaining. Yes. So I propose we just use that and then maybe just S.C.. Brian. You know, when we're for one last opinion. He should just say, yeah, that's fine based on what he said. And then ideally, can the Lincoln be? A generic link that does not need to be updated for a triple, basically a relative link. Right. Yeah, yeah. It's basically one you can just copy the file over and it does the right thing. That won't be very good. Yeah. The link will then not work when you're looking at the license plates after your luggage that recalled those. OK. No good. It's still I mean, we can we can we can do the red. The relative link, as interesting as the base thing in whatever template copying thing that people would normally do. And then we can upgrade the link if we choose to do so where we think it matters. Yeah. So that means not that much trouble. Put it on one link, right? Yeah. But it's something to remember when you're copy pasting files, when you're adding in Europe was a tree. Yeah. When you're scaffolding, get out. It's so easy to. Right. Especially when you have multiple things to do. I think we could like you said, we could put the default into the template and with the instructions to upgrade it to the full you are able to do. And then if it's if it's the kind of thing you could fix later. Right. If you forget it. Yeah. Because the the ongoing I mean the one time one. Yeah. It's good to reduce that. But also avoiding having to update the file by using that link as I think you know, to really work with the. Yeah. OK. So no author's file files add a link to the get up contributor stage. And just leave the contributors. But. You mean in the like, copyrighted lighter beta's copyright contributors and a link to a link YAF right to the get up contributors page. Seems reasonable. OK. Any other evidence on that one? Those witnesses, sock's. No. OK. Let's move on to the next one. So the next one is not Fetch is looking for help. No. 360. This swan. St. John Church, Shopian, that's just wondering. I can add a little complexed here. This actually dovetails or is related to another agenda item about the Axios outreach and what I did from our last conversation. I'm going to paste this into the chat. I didn't want to do anything in those issues yet, but I created an issue from our last conversation that just pasted effectively an issue for an issue. But effectively, this would be a chance to maybe give us an opportunity to define what a process might look like for what I've dubbed an R.F. H. Requests for help. And in that new issue I made, you'll notice that on Twitter I filed two more requests from Low Dasch and Re testing library, probably most famously known for react testing library. But both of them went on Twitter saying, hey, I need help with my packages, I need help with maintenance. And similar to them, other teams reaching out for the issues I thought would be great if we had something, even if right now it's just like, hey, go to our docs, here's our table of contents. Then as we add, like the status. Right. As all other tools to the proposal is, maybe we just add something to the read me that's like, are you a package author? How do you get started? Because there's nothing in the read me that's actually actionable. That's how to join, but not necessarily because there is I kind of noticed it in the not to digress too much, but from the collabs summit. Doctor, I was reading it's kind of like we have two audiences, I think, and they probably overlap, but we maybe have two audiences. We have maybe somebody like myself who wants to help the team, help other people versus someone who has an actual package authors. I don't have time to help in a team. I just want whenever the teams come up with an appropriate project. So maybe this issue is more like if you're in the latter category where I need help managing my project and also have time to contribute to making other projects better. So. So, yes, visit R.F. H or request for help. Process, I suppose, is the simplest distillation. Then if we figure that out, then we can go to those issues and be like, hey, we added something. Read me. Give this a go and then here's a way to give us feedback. Right. OK. And then we can also do that with people on Twitter or other chats like, hey, check out this section of our read me. So I guess it's more of a discussion on, you know, is there a standard operating procedure we could agree on, even if small, that that just builds up over time and at least just get it set in the read me as a starting point. I think that's a great idea. I mean, I'm almost wondering if, like, is it going. Would it be better to try and pull it apart even further by like, say, having a new repo or something like that? That's focused on that other audience. Maybe I mean, I think there is. Yeah, I mean, I think there's probably a decent amount of overlap between those who are interested in what the teams are doing and want to help. I could probably extrapolate some of that. I do. I would say maybe if we grow large enough that there's such a I guess it's maybe just the monolith versus micro service. Are we are we there yet? Right. Yeah, exactly. I think it's similar to how we took a baby step lushes get like a table of contents for our dogs so we can at least maybe link up to the contents from the read me. Yep. So, yeah, I'm not I'm not opposed to, you know, but I think maybe just at least for the discussion part I guess would be carried. I guess to be good to know if anybody else has any thoughts on this. R.F. H approach. And you know, having some little actionable set of resources, basic is like we had the survey about as kind of a very beeby synchronous approach. But people are giving out very asynchronously. So like we now know, we're just going to do like a survey every year if we can do things that people can base self, serve themselves when they came for us. Yeah. Because I could also see, like, saying if there's a particular area that you think you need more, you know, it would be good to have a best practice as doc, please let us know, like we could call out at least a few of those things. And were you thinking of a place that they could like PR in their project? That's one that's looking for help. I guess that's. Well, I guess that could be part of it is. Right. So it's like so if we go to the read me and then we add some sort of section like you getting started or, you know, our resources or something like that, you know, I'd say the first word is a link to the docs. Right. Most people don't even know that we have the docs, right or wrong to. Right. Yep. So get that started then. Maybe say, like also we're experimenting with some sort of automation. Here's links to this project in this project. Yeah. And then I suppose from there we could also say we have a survey. If you want to open a PR, you can fill out the survey yourself and submit the results back and then we can just kind of collect them. So there's a kind of a process for giving feedback. We're like, hey, I really loved the docs and I really loved the tools, but it would be really awesome for me is blah. You know, I hate it. And I kind of just goes back to is there a process for knowing what's there and then saying it'd be great if there was also X, Y and Z. But I'm even thinking like the sort of real, you know, the the the super grand scheme was like if we could get enough people involved and we could help manage a list of things that, you know, maintainers wanted help with a first step on that could be just maintaining a list of like, you know, Twitter would be one way of getting that out. But another one would be like, here are the projects that have actually expressed a request for help. Mm hmm. And it's just another place where we could, you know, evangelize a little bit that those. Yeah. Yeah. We could definitely add a section in that in that same section tonight. If you're looking to help other teams, here's a list of projects, right. That they're looking for help. And yet teams could then of PR themselves into that list. You know, either a separate doc or write in the read B whenever we end up doing. And I think another interesting point. Just food for thought on this. As we discussed about in the kind of the axios issue is what is our what are the expectations around this group in terms of help like. Probably not going to be able to come and actually start managing your rebo in your rhetoric, senior. Like we can help connect you to people who can help you triaged. But like I said, was like, hey, Axios doesn't have a maintainer anymore. Is that right? The for us other than. Well, here's guys. Maybe those. Can you. As post like. Hey, yeah. Well steward your project for three months until you find a Mateja that's probably not gonna happen. So it's war, it's just food for thought. A figure would be a good way to kind of aggregate the various issues. And yeah, just kind of similar to the table of contents, just kind of distill it down to one entry point that we can kind of build up and refine over time, that we can just quickly link to anybody in a tweet. Asla, whatever you like. Hey, start here and, you know, help us fill in the gaps if you don't find what you need through an issue. So, yeah. So, yeah. So what I can do, if it sounds like there's an openness to it, I could certainly kick off a PR for by the time we meet next time just to get a stuff out or scaffold out with that section of the read me might look like. And, you know, doesn't have to be a lot just to get it going. And then what's that? Initial inertia is overcome. You can just be as easy as another request after that for changes and updates. And then I figured out what I really want to do is be able to go back to those issues and say, hey, we've got something now. Why don't you start? Might be able to close it and be like if you've got something that's missing. Open an issue that's like. Right. Oh, we really. With what we've seen, we still need this. Right. As I get this. So ideally, like build a circle back, close those two in favor of this kind of thing. Yep, I think that's that makes a lot of sense to me and I know what other people think. I see a thumbs up from Dominie cars. So. No one else on video. Kids see if they're given a virtue. I take it as a thumbs up since no complaint. OK, I'll draft that for our next meeting and. Yeah, sounds great. Thanks. OK, the next issue is stocks issue trio nine governance models and also me. This has done well. This one still similar status. It's just really looking for feedback. I did do a little grammar phrasing, tweaking yesterday. Just some of the sentences were a little awkward on revisiting, but I'd say 99 percent of the content is still intact from that first draft. So if you already reviewed it, it's really just a little bit in the overview. Otherwise, everything else is still the same. So, yeah, just hoping that we get something like that in in time for collabs summit and really be able to show off those docs is like, hey, here's our our first volley for you. Yeah. Authors and kind of do a little reveal then, you know, even preview the best pose. Yeah. What is cloud. So it is. July. It's next week. Oh, it'll be. It's like Monday is the is the sort of new collaborator's day. And then Tuesday, Wednesday is the main conference and Thursday, Friday is the collapse summit. And I think it's the. I think it's. Yeah. It's gonna be the Thursday where it's like no specific project. OK. I think I commented in the Google doc. That was it. Was it Greg that started that, I think. Apologies if I got the name wrong. I dropped a couple links to the governance PR, the table of contents, and I think this issue. So even though there may be a work in progress there, they're still available. If we want to showcase any of those elements during the collapse of it so we can be up together would be good to get that landed by then. So it's not in the yards there, the contents there. So at least people can see it. We can at least show that there's stuff in progress. So hopefully. Yeah, I'm just trying to see. There is a schedule somewhere. I'm trying to find where that is. There's. OK. I can't find it right now. But, yeah, it the schedule is out. And so, yes, OK, look, I follow the links in the Google Docs so they can kind of piece that together. Just a quick question. If you listen. Jex, I was going to take the agenda label off the issues specific help like the Axelson node. Fetch. Take those off the agenda and just leave the top level issue. It makes sense to me. OK, yeah, awesome. Kopeks. OK, so the next one is submit session to Club Summit. And it was Glenn who's volunteered to work on that. I think with help from what's the issue is submitted and. I just would be like to find spent maybe one more second looking to see if I can find the. The actual schedule. I believe it's a PR ready, right. Well, summit repay. OK, I think I just found it. So this is the link. Look at the Scurlock squared off package. Right. So it's currently scheduled for twelve o'clock. It's on the twenty sixth of June. And that's GMT minus five. So just so that. So I don't think there's too much else. OK, about on that front. But, uh. Anything else that people want to talk on, that one and that one or. If not, let's move forward. The next issue is dependence tooling, number 327. So, Andrew, you'd open that up? I'll give a quick update. So since last meeting, I've opened appeal. I had the process, I thought, amongst in the last meeting. I'm currently working on a very small, quick prototype for the whippy result function as well, which will return to see our result run. I should have a draft. We are open for that today at some point once I've figured out how to get the testing. So we don't. I sit for now for the updates laughs. Unless you want to add, then you can best. Just. It's on it's on my to do list and to review it properly and hopefully get landed. I don't I don't think we need to be too strict on blending things, because if we're mr in a prototype phase, we can change it quite drastically without any commitment. So, yeah, I think it's more accessible for people to contribute if we kind of land as we go, even if it's not ready. That way somebody else can, you know, submit a PR versus having to look at a PR. And I don't know what other people think. I was going to look into it and then, yeah, I have some time to spend on Honest over the next two months or so. So I would be happy to help out any way I can. Should we have a spin off session to basically dig into some details there and the next steps and make once was the initial PR slammed then? And then it's easier for multiple people to start working on it. But even then, should we try to do some API design before we go ahead and sort of sketch out what's what's. What are the next steps? Yes. Yes. Wants to volunteer to set that up. I'm just thinking. We've got the this such open, just wild session next week. Maybe we'll let that happen. And then we've got the following package maintenance meeting the following Tuesday. So then maybe after then in terms of timings. So it might be the case. We don't need one because we're going to have a couple of hours of meetings before then anyway. Sorry, my dog to bathroom. So basically after it opened. Yes. World will set one up. Does that sound right? Yeah. Yeah. And I can if we still need one to flush out API design and show, I'll go for the. OK. Anything more we want to talk about on that one? Sure. OK. The next one is PCH. Yes, Orac for W for W.G. supported tooling. That one is currently at the point where we work through the governance that we've proposed and the there is an issue now, actually there's a related issue, right? The draft governance. So that's three three eight. And maybe I should just put that in the notes here. And I've submitted a PR to charter, the working group. In the TSC Repo just one week ago. So that is in process. So far, it's looking for late. Latest. So far, there's a couple of approvals. We'll bring it up in the TSC meeting this week to hopefully get a few more. But it's looking. No, no, no. Expect that it should move forward. OK. So the anything more people want to talk about that one. OK, so let's move on to the next one, which is next steps and support levels and package, Jason. That one, we're just trying to get the tool front of forlong. I just need to get back to land the initial PR rebase, the PR I was working on. And then there were a couple more things that we've talked about in terms of checking out the deal passing. And then hopefully we'll we'll be pretty close to having what we need to start promoting that. And the other discussion on that went that anybody has wants to do. OK, if not, we're at the end of the regular agenda. Are there any other things that people want to talk about or. Added this towards the end of yesterday, posting a link free to me on the stream that's curious. There is some good, good first issue type items in our for our documentation. Just review writing and curating our some of our docs that are authored but considered in a draft status. So it created a top level issue to kind of corral them, made the law checkboxes. So if anybody would like to help out that you hear or in general that is there. So yeah. Yeah, that's very helpful. Thank you. Thanks for doing that. Welcome. So we just took one of those. We could probably polish it off pretty quickly, but. Yeah, I think so. I mean, I, I, I didn't go into each of them in depth. So there may be varying degrees of completeness, but I think, you know, most of them are probably good enough. You know, maybe just one final draft is the way someone submits it to move it out and, you know, just keep improving it there. I don't think there is any established criteria for what, you know, tip something out of drafts into ready. But maybe it's just more of like a. The governance thing like, yes, this is something we all agree, we want to speak as a single voice on the right. That formal or not, but yeah, probably some low hanging fruit. I mean, it's all in the table of contents. Anyway, I think it's just noted as a draft. But, you know, it's a decent chunk of the dock. So. Yeah. But yeah, if we just took one that we like, we could probably all. Yeah. So maybe also something. An easy point for a collab somebody had was in their low hanging fruit one. Yeah. I just threw that out there to get a little to my balls on it. So. Yep, yeah, I know. Definitely. OK, yeah. No, thanks. Because we should. We have left them there and draft for way too long. OK. Any other topics that people want to bring up? I guess if not, why don't we call it for today? OK, well, thanks to everybody for taking the time. And we'll hopefully see everybody and everybody is listening on the stream at the collaborative summit next week. And the Open Just World Conference. So looking forward to seeing you all there, virtually. Bye. Thanks, Mike. Bye bye.