Open cthoyt opened 2 years ago
This looks good! The section
Because the code is already set up in https://github.com/biopragmatics/bioregistry and https://github.com/biopragmatics/bioregistry-docker, external contributions are welcome. These should must be approved by a member of the Core Team as well as pass continuous integration tests before merge.
is a bit strangely worded, it could say something like
Contributions to the Bioregistry code should be submitted as pull requests to https://github.com/biopragmatics/bioregistry. Code contribution guidelines are available at [...]. Code contributions must be approved by a member of the Core Team as well as pass continuous integration tests before merging.
we could then add a standard code contributions guideline in a separate file explaining the fork/pull request policy, code style, etc.
@bgyori I've started a PR for a code contribution file in #162 as well as tagged you on #161 to discuss adding a code of conduct
Few suggestions:
easy:
harder: One of the biggest governance challenges is deciding who gets to decide, and what their term limits/process for staying are on any given committee or decisionmaking body. How can we ensure that its not one person and their friends? or that the members are diverse in multiple ways? Maybe a statement to this effect is sufficient for now:
To instantiate the two committees, volunteers will be accepted by nomination (self or otherwise) to @cthoyt. Once a critical mass of nominees is identified (e.g. 3-5 for each group), a review of the members to ensure diversity (institutional, expertise, demographics, etc.) will be conducted, with additional members sought if needed. The groups will define their SOPs for review and development and these will be posted publicly. We will also determine a strategy for turnover of the committees.
I recently began committing this in https://github.com/biopragmatics/bioregistry/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md, there's also some information about when the governance gets bootstrapped. Not exactly what @mellybelly had in mind, but I recruited @megbalk, @callahantiff, and @lubianat to join as the initial team to have a wide variety of interests, backgrounds, and a specific focus on getting highly available early career scientists involved
The goal of the Bioregistry is to enable community-driven curation and maintenance of a registry of prefixes and their associated metadata. This is a first suggestion for some minimal goveranance (heavily inspired by https://github.com/mapping-commons/SSSOM/issues/82, since that is a similar community-driven effort):
Manually Updating the Bioregistry
Review Team
The review team is responsible for reviewing requests for new prefixes, merging prefixes, splitting prefixes, and updating metadata associated with prefixes. It is implemented as a GitHub team that has "triage" permissions (e.g., able to maintain issues and pull requests).
Until all of the potential update interactions have been codified with GitHub actions workflows, the review team is also responsible for either helping the requester create an appropriate pull request or creating an appropriate pull request directly if none has been given by the requester.
Membership
Core Development Team
The Core Development Team is responsible for maintaining the codebase associated with the Bioregistry, which includes the Python package, the Bioregistry web application, docker configurations/artifacts, and related GitHub repositories. It is implemented as a GitHub team that has "maintain" permissions (e.g., able to write to the repo as well as maintain issues and pull requests).
Contributions to the Bioregistry code should be submitted as pull requests to https://github.com/biopragmatics/bioregistry. They should conform to the contribution guidelines. Code contributions must be approved by a member of the Core Development Team as well as pass continuous integration tests before merging.
Membership
Publications / Attribution