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

fix: replace okrs_url with objectives and make it recommended #1138

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Apr 15, 2024

Conversation

fmvilas
Copy link
Member

@fmvilas fmvilas commented Mar 30, 2024

Fixes this: #1075 (comment).

Copy link
Member

@derberg derberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice, what about #1075 (review) comment?

@fmvilas
Copy link
Member Author

fmvilas commented Apr 2, 2024

nice, what about #1075 (review) comment?

I have no idea what you're expecting there. Maybe mention that WG meetings should go through our automation for meetings? 🤔 An example would be helpful.

@derberg
Copy link
Member

derberg commented Apr 3, 2024

@fmvilas sorry for making myself clear. So basically currently https://github.com/fmvilas/community/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md says noting about transparency of work, and meetings.

we have this nice paragraph:

A Working Group has no authority or power over the roadmap of the projects they may impact. It's up to the repositories' maintainers (code owners) to approve or reject the pull requests. Therefore, it's advisable to either have maintainers of the impacted projects in the Working Group or ensure everyone agrees on the roadmap of the different repositories/projects.

but we kinda assume transparency is known to everyone, but we already know it is not. So this is why we should have it written down:

  • that WG should discuss ideas and solutions in public, and communicate through official channels all relevant discussions and implementations that want to suggest to others
  • we should recommend current approach with meetings we have, that they can be scheduled ad hoc and that they can have more official reoccuring meeting -> https://github.com/asyncapi/community/blob/master/MEETINGS_ORGANIZATION.md

Chatham House Rule? yeah, that is something we need to start separate discussion first

@fmvilas
Copy link
Member Author

fmvilas commented Apr 10, 2024

/help

@asyncapi-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Hello, @fmvilas! 👋🏼

    I'm 🧞🧞🧞 Genie 🧞🧞🧞 from the magic lamp. Looks like somebody needs a hand!

    At the moment the following comments are supported in pull requests:

    - `/please-take-a-look` or `/ptal` - This comment will add a comment to the PR asking for attention from the reviewrs who have not reviewed the PR yet.
    - `/ready-to-merge` or `/rtm` - This comment will trigger automerge of PR in case all required checks are green, approvals in place and do-not-merge label is not added
    - `/do-not-merge` or `/dnm` - This comment will block automerging even if all conditions are met and ready-to-merge label is added
    - `/autoupdate` or `/au` - This comment will add `autoupdate` label to the PR and keeps your PR up-to-date to the target branch's future changes. Unless there is a merge conflict or it is a draft PR.

@fmvilas
Copy link
Member Author

fmvilas commented Apr 10, 2024

/ptal

@asyncapi-bot
Copy link
Contributor

@alequetzalli @thulieblack Please take a look at this PR. Thanks! 👋

@fmvilas
Copy link
Member Author

fmvilas commented Apr 10, 2024

LOL I wanted the bot to ping @derberg too but it didn't 😅

@derberg
Copy link
Member

derberg commented Apr 15, 2024

/rtm

@asyncapi-bot asyncapi-bot merged commit fa6e206 into asyncapi:master Apr 15, 2024
8 checks passed
@fmvilas fmvilas deleted the fix-wg-info branch April 15, 2024 23:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants