Issues list maintenance by guides

[dckc]

Bounty task guides for a number of areas are here to align contributions with goals of the RChain cooperative -- Bounty Task Guides

unguided issue query has been moved to that wiki page.

Measure of Completion: issues are regularly reviewed and pruned by a collection of guides, preferably with some overlap / redundancy.

[zsluedem]

What about the finished issue without paying bounties?
I suggest we create a new label for those issues. It would help manage those bounty issue at the end of the month.

[dckc]

@zsluedem elaborate, please? I don't understand. What is the situation that you are concerned about? What steps lead up to it?

Each person is responsible for collecting their own bounties by voting on budgets and rewards.

I encourage rewards only for closed issues (#318) and I encourage others to do likewise, but it's not something I want added to the CONTRIBUTING.md bounty contract as a hard-and-fast rule at this time.

[zsluedem]

@dckc OK, I got your meaning. We see this in different perspective. I think the issue should be closed when it is done paying the rewards.But there are always some issues without any bounties. So I think what you suggest reward for closed issues is cool.

Because I think it's kind of hard for one to organize all of the bounties at the end of the month, I think the new label of closed issue would help.However, the bounty app will also solve this problem. So I was over-worried.

[lapin7]

When there's a reward on a closed issue for February, the reward will be also on the invoice of February. So it would get paid.

[dckc]

I see somebody put some of the guides in the label descriptions. Thanks!

[lapin7]

Yep. Only a url is missing to contributing.md

[dckc]

link to contributing.md from where?

CONTRIBUTING.md is a pretty strong norm in github; I'm OK leaving many links to it implicit.

[ghost]

I am wrapping my head around this. Trying to find the best way to do this. I'll have something ready in the next two days.

[dckc]

@ICA3DaR5 you're already doing most of what I have in mind, though it doesn't hurt to write it down so that someone can help you or fill in for you or take on the role.

I suppose I didn't explain what I meant by pruning:

• Use invalid or wontfix labels to close issues that are no longer worth tracking.
• label issues as needs-SMART-objective as a warning if, after a week or two to allow for brainstorming, there isn't a plausible plan in the issue or at least a clear next step.

[dckc]

I suggest $1,500.00 for a budget on this one for Feb. I'd appreciate others voting on budgets and rewards here. @David405 @lapin7 @patrick727

[ghost]

@dckc Voted on this, as well.

[dckc]

I'm still looking for confirmation from guides for Operations, Marketing, and Governance.

[pmoorman]

Happy to take care of the marketing section, @dckc @patrick727

[dckc]

Excellent, @pmoorman . I see a lot of work to do in that area. Last time I checked there were 61 open Marketing issues; I doubt they're all still worth tracking.

[dckc]

I hope that the branding WG will address most of these, as apparently the bounty system is not the right way to resolve them.

I hope those are not exclusive. I hope the branding WG can make use of the bounty system.

I was surprised how many issues from more than 3-4 months were still open

I'm a little bit disappointed, but I'm not at all surprised. Systems naturally tend toward entropy; it takes work to bring order. 3-4 months ago the whole system was new and everybody was just figuring it out.

Keep up the good work!

[dckc]

I added a few labels to the query:

• is:issue is:open -label:Translation -label:Marketing -label:Development -label:Operations -label:Governance -label:member-site -label:nom-committee -label:greeter

There are three "stray" issues from this perspective. I don't see any particular way to move them forward, but I think 3 is a small enough number to leave them as they are.

[dckc]

@pmoorman are you involved in coordinating RChain speakers at blockchain events? Please take a look at #583 and #593.

[pmoorman]

No I'm not. I'd guess @patrick is a better ask. Or I could have a look at those issues anyway. *(Right now on a stopover in Moscow to Holland, so will check it out tomorrow / day after)*

…

On 23 April 2018 at 01:55, Dan Connolly ***@***.***> wrote: @pmoorman <https://github.com/pmoorman> are you involved in coordinating RChain speakers at blockchain events? Please take a look at #583 <#583> and #593 <#593>. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#401 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEEfWHRFKAV9FIkA0OPKo7XLX2u3Z-jBks5trNIWgaJpZM4SO5zX> .

[dckc]

I moved #583 (along with #593) from Marketing to Events.

Anybody want to guide Events issues?

[Ojimadu]

Sure, I can guide issues surrounding events and occasions.

[dckc]

Thanks for stepping up, @Ojimadu . Are you in contact with the people who would be speaking at the events? Or can you think of some other way to coordinate?

There's a #pr-opportunities channel in discord. I would expect considerable overlap between discussion of which PR opportunities to pursue and which speaking opportunities to pursue. Do you know how #pr-opportunities get evaluated?

[Ojimadu]

Speakers would depend on what the coop is trying to achieve from the event. I had once evaluated getting speaking positions on behalf of the coop but that seems delicate as the speakers would need to be contacted on their schedule and time. Also, there is a question as to what capacity a given speaker would speak -as a coop member or as an official representative of the co-op -.

For the coop and its partners, getting a list of events that they would be interested in attending and pitching it to them IMO would be better as I believe these entities would be able to get organize speakers if otherwise, they might seek help from the coop members.
For other individuals that might come up to speak at events, depending on how familiar they are with RChain would probably have their text reviewed to avoid misrepresentation.
@makys raised an important point on issue #241 which is worth considering.

[dckc]

OK, @Ojimadu ; keep us posted on who you're in contact with at the coop and its partners.

[TrenchFloat]

I frequently check the Operations and Education labels. I can be the guide for those labels.

EDIT: Just went through the Education issues and closed or nudged stagnant issues. Will get to the Operations issues tomorrow.

[pmoorman]

nice, good idea @TrenchFloat

[dckc]

I just made a Bounty Task Guides wiki page, which consolidates info from this issue and #616 on the TOS.

I hope to see regular confirmation from guides that they are serving in this role.

[pmoorman]

I hope to see regular confirmation from guides that they are serving in this role.

What would "regular confirmation" look like?

[dckc]

Your Mar 8 "Just went through the marketing issues ..." comment is perhaps archtypical of regular confirmation.

But I can imagine other forms...

Perhaps notes from a Gov WG meeting would show Alex (pretend name) saying "I took my turn reviewing Governance issues this week. I closed a couple stinky ones. The new ones were straightforward to give guidance except for two that I'd like your input on..." and the group goes on to discuss them, resulting in feedback comments in the issues.

Or maybe there are only 7 greeter issues and it's self-evident that they're in good order. It's slightly more convenient if somebody shows and tells us that things are in order, but if it's plain at a glance, then all is well.

[pmoorman]

oke, yeah works for me.
I thought maybe you had something specific in mind.

[dckc]

Let's use #672 for follow-up.

[TrenchFloat]

Any thoughts on the May budget for this issue? It was open for two weeks, so we could count it as half of the April budget or lump it all in with #672.

I'm voting $800, half of my April vote, for now.