Closed HelenBurge closed 1 year ago
From my point of view (hat on: CG person that tend to review every PR), I often see the following effects:
This has been put on the agenda for Thursday's TF call. I'll wait with comments until that conversation has happened.
From comments made in the meeting:
We've invited the CG chairs to join ACT TF for a conversation on this topic for the June 29th call.
Discussion in our TF 29 June meeting
The main issue we've discovered is that not enough background information is included. Going forward PRs that come from ACT TF will link to the survey. Resolutions from discussing should be included in the pull requests as well. Going forward the liaison of a rule will take notes on what changes are requested, which should hopefully prevent confusion about what changes were requested.
We're going to try this updated process and are closing this issue. If this proves insufficient we'll revisit.
There has been a gradual breakdown of communication between the task force and community group. This is often highlighted by pull requests where the TF have discussed and agreed from reviews in https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OSkPFocXk4K3zYLnwS78WLsWO4PvE5yRcsauyefuIUI/edit#gid=1605073031 and then discussed in a meeting, and the action items done in the PR: https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2064
As seen from the comments from @Jym77 some decisions made are not clear to the community group.
We also have had issues of large changes being discussed and agreed, without getting agreement from CG until items are in progress.
It would be good to get a more formal way of sharing information. We used to rely on one person to share information, but maybe a more formal process would be good?
Please suggest ideas for ways we can improve the current situation.