Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Teams Responsibilities, permissions, criteria #18

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Dr-Irv
Copy link

@Dr-Irv Dr-Irv commented Mar 31, 2024

This has a file that would be removed in the final governance acceptance, but is kept separate to allow discussion on the fundamental concepts of the steering committee and teams.

This contains a file that describes the responsibilities, permissions and admissions criteria for the different teams.

Related to #17

@Dr-Irv
Copy link
Author

Dr-Irv commented Mar 31, 2024

@jorisvandenbossche This is the part that would go "in the middle" of the governance document.

@jorisvandenbossche
Copy link
Member

I would maybe separate the steering committee from the other teams?

@Dr-Irv Dr-Irv changed the title middle matter - steering committee and teams description Teams Responsibilites, permissions, criteria Apr 3, 2024
teams.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
#### Permissions

* Has permission to merge anything to the main branch of the _pandas _repository
* Only Team with PDEP voting rights
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I can see how in the majority of cases this would be true. There are a couple of examples in the Clear examples for potential PDEPs and Borderline examples section of the PDEP such as Changing the build system to meson where this may no longer be appropriate?

I guess that once the governance documents are updated we will need to revisit the PDEP process to update some wording such as core development team anyway?

Is it worth starting that revision of PDEP-1 now in parallel with the governance revisions so that the language and responsibilities are consistent and not ambiguous ?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we have to agree that once the governance changes are accepted, then we'll update PDEP-1.

teams.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
teams.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@simonjayhawkins
Copy link
Member

Incidentally, do we know if the teams idea is going to work in practice? i.e. do we have core (library) members that have shown an interest in participating in the proposed teams?

teams.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Dr-Irv
Copy link
Author

Dr-Irv commented May 6, 2024

Incidentally, do we know if the teams idea is going to work in practice? i.e. do we have core (library) members that have shown an interest in participating in the proposed teams?

That's a really good question, and we'll have to discuss how to figure that out.

The concept of the teams was discussed in Basel (I was not there), so I'm hopeful that people were aligned with the concept and would be willing to participate in more than one team.

@simonjayhawkins
Copy link
Member

@Dr-Irv I don't seem to have permission to edit the title. typo Responsibilites -> Responsibilities

@Dr-Irv Dr-Irv changed the title Teams Responsibilites, permissions, criteria Teams Responsibilities, permissions, criteria May 14, 2024
@Dr-Irv
Copy link
Author

Dr-Irv commented May 14, 2024

@Dr-Irv I don't seem to have permission to edit the title. typo Responsibilites -> Responsibilities

Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it.

@Dr-Irv Dr-Irv marked this pull request as ready for review June 5, 2024 16:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants