Add some kind of an "Assisted do-ocracy pledge" toward contributions (from within and outside the team)

[yarikoptic]

I am thinking around these lines

• This is a collaborative project and contributions to any component from any developer and outside contributor(s) are welcome
• DANDI project encourages submitting PRs to resolve outstanding issues, in particular with severity-important and severity-critical labels
• The primary developer team of the corresponding component pledges to provide timely feedback to bring submitted PRs to the acceptable state (and resort to provide an alternative implementation only if significant changes are required)

WDYT @dandi/dandiarchive @dandi/archive-maintainers @dandi/dandi-cli (we need to come up with @dandi/people super-team... will do some time)

[waxlamp]

This is a good idea. But before we go through with it, I'd like to figure out a contributor workflow, since we've already discovered that forks will cause Netlify builds to fail, etc. We also need some kind of review guidelines since we want to keep the code quality to our standards without alienating drive-by contributors, etc.

[waxlamp]

What does "assisted do-ocracy" mean?

[yarikoptic]

re do-ocracy, wikipedia is too generic, https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Do-ocracy seems to provide some good pointers in software world. It is a driving force beyond many community projects, Debian included: people who took care to package some software become ultimate "decision makers" (unless gets into problematic cases and then it is up to higher committees to resolve or to vote project-wide on). With plain do-ocratic powers though some problematic cases arise whenever a sole maintainer makes ... suboptimal moves. That is why for lots of work, people join into Teams - where original/dominant maintainer becomes the one to weigh more. So we are kinda there already since we do have teams.

"assisted" was a little rushed idea choice of the word. I think better choices could be "collaborative", "guided" (but I don't like "managed"): what I wanted to lead to -- that a contribution author would get guidance/help from the author/team on his/her contribution (where he remains a "lead" following the principle of do-ocracy) to get it landed in the codebase.

[yarikoptic]

We also need some kind of review guidelines since we want to keep the code quality to our standards without alienating drive-by contributors, etc.

+:100: on that ;) Automation of styling and testing would provide a good amount of relief and streamline contributions and guidelines themselves.