search

QuiltMC / rfcs

Repository for requests for comments for proposing changes to the Quilt Project.
Other
61 stars 33 forks source link

RFC 61: Sponsorship Guidelines #61

Closed Southpaw1496 closed 2 years ago

Southpaw1496 commented 2 years ago

Rendered View: https://github.com/Southpaw1496/rfcs/blob/master/rfc/0061-sponsorships.md

This RFC outlines a procedure for applying for, accepting, running, and terminating any sponsorship that we may receive (e.g 1Password, Starchild Systems etc.). It has guidelines for ideal sponsors to meet, as well as a validation process to gather community feedback on sponsors, and a procedure for addressing concerns that the team or community may have with a given sponsor.

TwilightFlower commented 2 years ago

The main issue I have with this is the use of the forum exclusively. Even if posts are mirrored to discord, it creates a barrier of creating an account on yet another service in order to express concerns. Additionally, currently I and probably many others have the forum webhook channel muted since it's all unimportant, and even if I didn't have it muted, sponsor discussions will easily get lost in the other posts.

Southpaw1496 commented 2 years ago

The "Rational and Alternatives" section included reasoning for why the forum is most suitable. Namely, it's a place that we control, so people aren't locked out of discussions just because they distrust, have beef with, or otherwise can't access Discord. You can log into the forum using your Discord account, so I don't really see the argument for needing another account.

Regarding the webhook issue, I think we would create a separate feed for the Sponsorship section, as it is so important, like we currently do with RFCs on Toolchain. Would that resolve that specific issue for you?

Southpaw1496 commented 2 years ago

I was planning to put it on the website, with all our other informational things.

dj-enby commented 2 years ago

Very minor thing, in "Rationale and Alternatives," the third bullet point contains a misspelling, "forgo" should be "forego." Really great document!

Southpaw1496 commented 2 years ago

Thank you

While spelling mistakes should hardly be considered minor, in this particular instance, the spelling "Forgo" is correct. The Oxford Dictionary lists both spellings as acceptable (and it's not regional), and everything online either says there's no difference, or that "Forgo" means "to leave out" and "Forego" means "to go before", so I don't think this is a mistake.

Akarys42 commented 2 years ago

This PR has passed RFC and can be merged