[ckan-dev] CREPs - important proposal!

[David Read]

On 5 May 2011 14:22, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> On 5 May 2011 14:16, Seb Bacon <seb.bacon at okfn.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Following some discussion a couple of weeks ago, please review and
>> provide feedback on the following: http://trac.ckan.org/ticket/1127
>
> I'm +1 but have 2 minor suggestions:
>
> a) We use the CEPs named (CREP sounds sort of 'creepy' ;)

Holy crep! I think I prefer Rufus' name.

> b) We do use a versioning repo for the C(R)EPs rather than use trac (i
> think this will be more useful long term and better for editing
> substantial stuff -- and easier to transfer into proper docs).

+1 to Seb's suggestion of keeping this in the trac, to lower the
barrier between small features and CEP features. It also includes them
in our weekly meetings nicely.

(Will added)
> The idea itself is a double-edged sword. It will promote stability which is good but can also tend towards rigidity and stagnation which is bad. Each added bit of bureaucracy and process means fewer people will be willing to collaborate or participate in improving the software.

I think 20 minutes writing a clear CREP and getting agreement is an
excellent use of time in (say) a few day's work on a feature. I think
contributions can only improve a proposal.

I do worry about lag though, between writing the proposal and being
able to start work on it. I think the one-day threshold of requiring a
CREP may be better at two days.

How about suggesting that allowing one working day is a good amount of
time to allow for initial responses, which might be 'please can we
talk about this more?' or 'I'd like more time to respond'.

Dave