The current proposal makes no mention of how things like bug reports or existing recorded issues are handled. I'm mostly thinking of small things though I imagine we could end up with some medium-sized projects which have already been specced out and are essentially waiting someone doing them.
For this sort of thing, where a bug report on GitHub could be solved by a quick fix and a PR, the current process feels highly likely to inject unnecessary overheads into what could be quite a simple flow.
This possibly interacts with #3 as the flow I'd hope that the above described things would have is something like:
bug report appears, possibly via the forums or otherwise
(optionally) brief discussion in slack/wherever happens to find someone interested in fixing it
volunteer self-assigns github issue
volunteer hacks on stuff
volunteer submits PR
PR is tested & code reviewed by another volunteer (perhaps the maintainer of the tech area, maybe not)
PR is merged
deployment happens (ideally automatically where that is viable)
If this sort of thing is below the scope of the Dev Team, that's fine, but if so we should probably say somewhere that the Dev Team is scoped to larger projects only.
The current proposal makes no mention of how things like bug reports or existing recorded issues are handled. I'm mostly thinking of small things though I imagine we could end up with some medium-sized projects which have already been specced out and are essentially waiting someone doing them.
For this sort of thing, where a bug report on GitHub could be solved by a quick fix and a PR, the current process feels highly likely to inject unnecessary overheads into what could be quite a simple flow.
This possibly interacts with #3 as the flow I'd hope that the above described things would have is something like: