-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 274
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
Locating "fundable" tasks across conda-forge #2172
Comments
cc @jakirkham because I think you brought this up a couple core meetings ago and I said I'd follow up. This is my crude attempt at getting the conversation started. |
Org-wide issue search with labels works pretty ok. We can use the If we enabled Project boards in the organization we can also have some automation to have them added automatically, but this has proven tricky in the |
I opened conda-forge/.github#506, if someone wants to take a look! If I don't hear back, I'll merge by next week. |
And #2296 for the docs. |
There have been repeated attempts at elaborating a list of "core ideas", "required improvements", "conda-forge wishlist" to give the community a better insight on what parts of the conda-forge ecosystem requires work.
These repeated attempts in my opinion signal that we were not able to find a model to document these things effectively with low-effort. I'd like to propose a couple of alternatives to see if we can get better at this. One of the motivations would be to let funding sources find actionable items easily. PSF has this repo, but I think that model won't work for us.
My proposal is more less based on using issues instead of documents or repositories.
For new and existing items that are not in progress:
For in-progress tasks:
Once done or obsolete:
This assumes the issues will be in this repository. Oftentimes, there's key work documented in other repos (infra, key feedstocks, etc). I'm not sure how to deal with those. Maybe:
Tangentially related: all funding streams that mention conda-forge as the target organization should be documented in the funding docs page, for transparency. I don't think we are currently enforcing this, but I wonder to what point we should and what the feelings are there.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: