Process flow diagram

[allant0]

The team introduced a process flow that included a slide that showed how submissions would be reviewed by editors. During a call we discussed that this item was actually the editors would review with the working group in an iterative manner to ensure the approved submission reflected the groups input not just the submitters input. The team agreed to update the diagram to show this aspect of the review cycle including group review and iteration on the submission.

Posting this submission for Andor as a reminder based on his request.

[andorsk]

Thanks @allant0!

I'm not sure what diagram you are referring to but maybe someone can help pin point it. @a-fox you mentioned you knew which one it was? Can someone point this issue to the direction of the existing diagram?

We can of course, always make a new visual diagram but I think to @allant0's point, this is something specifically mentioned over an older ToIP call. I can take this, but @a-fox, you said you wanted to take this. I'm happy to assign to you?

[allant0]

There was a slide deck where the folks introduced the new process. There was one slide that had a good diagram on the process for PR submission, editor review and merge...etc. We agreed that the diagram didn't show the part where the group would review and come to agreement. The diagram implied that editors made all the decisions which everyone agreed was not the case. This diagram was considered good to include in the explanation of the process.

[andorsk]

@allant0 understood that there was a slide as some point in the past shown that represents the flow, that currently doesn't exist in the documentation, but would be helpful to add in. That makes sense. The problem is that I have no idea where that slide is or what that slide looks like. I'll be happy to review it and add it in if someone can point me to it.

I'll need someone ( if not you then someone else ), to provide one of the following:

• If you know the relative date, we can pin it probably through the TAFT meeting notes.
• If you know who presented it, we can tag them here and hope they can share the link.
• If you have the slides link, even better.
• If you have the actual image, obviously that would work.

@a-fox you seemed to suggest you know where the slide is. Could you point us to the slides?

[a-fox]

Ah, absolutely! The process in question is in this slidedeck (located in the ToIP shared GDrive): https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IysE0KvrRlD8pPE2qtB-huuQcyQAVQ2hLz4bCgH_UFg/edit#slide=id.p
You need to be a ToIP member with registered email address to gain access to it.

The image in question is this one:

IIRC the discussion was to add the 'editor subgroup' if further discussion was needed.
How the process look at this point? Should it still be amended?

[allant0]

I posted a comment directly in the google doc. I believe this diagram does not reflect the agreement that was discussed on the call.

i.e. the iterative process of a submission by editor review must include broader group review also especially on technical matters that require consensus. That was what sounded like we all agreed to on the call but this diagram above suggests that only editors will iterate on a submission. This implies editors could end up changes the submission substantially without group consensus. None of us want that.

[andorsk]

fair. Thanks for the links. I'll see if I can make some updates here and get a PR in with the adjustments, for review of everyone else. I don't think this is high priority, so not going to put the gas on this unless someone feels otherwise?

[talltree]

From the discussion in the Google Slides file containing the diagram, it looks like the fix is done. If so, can we close this issue?

[a-fox]

@talltree, I still need to update the GOVERNANCE -document with the process image. I will do a PR today.

[talltree]

@a-fox Very good, once you do that, you can close this issue, thanks.

[a-fox]

I added a PR to add the process image & description: #75