Meta Proposal: closing open Issues

[yeqbfgxjiq]

It's recently come to my attention (via my own errors lol) that the Temporary Aragon Cooperative Workflow does not include specific details as to how to close open Issues that did not request funding. This is a little problematic...

To fix this I'd like to propose that for any Issue to be closed, it needs approval from the group. This should be separate from the compensation/completion vote for funded Issues. Creating this separation will allow the community to come to consensus on whether or not we feel like an AGP-40 deliverable is satisfied. A few use cases:

• work was done to contribute towards an open Issue, but did not fully fulfill the deliverable and thus did not close the Issue
• work was done on an Issues that fulfills the minimum acceptable standards, but could also be improved
• some Issues are vaguely worded and leave room for interpretation

This Meta Proposal is open to discussion. Feedback will be formalized into a concrete augmentation to the current workflow and put to a vote.

[pythonpete32]

Firstly id like to say thank you for writing #26, you have shown great leadership at a time it was really needed. :heart:

the Temporary Aragon Cooperative Workflow does not include specific details as to how to close open Issues that did not request funding

I don't understand what the problem is. If there is no request for funding but the issue has been resolved, then surely the protocol for closing is the same except there are no funds paid.

Creating this separation will allow the community to come to consensus on whether or not we feel like an AGP-40 deliverable is satisfied

if funding is requested or not, we still need come consensus about completion of deliverables.

[yeqbfgxjiq]

@pythonpete32

Thanks for the kind words :)

I don't understand what the problem is. If there is no request for funding but the issue has been resolved, then surely the protocol for closing is the same except there are no funds paid.

The problem is that if funding is requested or not, we still need come consensus about completion of deliverables.

The current process is to comment in the open Issue with:

• the AGP-40 deliverable that you worked on
• the steps you actually took to move us towards shipping that deliverable and where we are now as a result
• the amount of time it actually took
• amount of billable time being requested

Then to create a vote around that.

While we could just go ahead and create votes around that process omitting the request for compensation, some AGP-40 deliverables use language that is so vague that I'm honestly not sure what to do with them. Also, sometimes work will be done that contributes towards a deliverable, but does not satisfy it completely. Separating the concerns of Issue completion and payment requests seems like a cleaner way to delineate concerns. Maybe that's overkill though, I dunno ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That's why it's up for discussion :)