django
Idea: Website working group
@marksweb suggests:
I think it would also make sense to have a working group for djangoproject.com given the significance of the website for the project & the community.
Currently there's people helping out, and it's fairly easy to find someone if you need something. However if these groups are being created, a more formal approach for the website seems sensible. And I'd be interested in being part of this.
There's also a website redesign on the horizon I believe, so that would also suit a group in it's own right I'd suggest.
The board has talked about this and generally speaking it's probably something we wanna do at some point. I think the next step would be to start to draft a charter (as covered in the README) and form membership.
If folks want to dive in feel free, or if you're just interested in helping out you could use this issue to register interest.
@carltongibson oh thanks for the pointer to that group. One easy option here would be to start by the WG's membership being that group and then grow from there.
@jacobian I think that's likely the way forwards, evolve the current group to the new WG format.
I suspect this will get some more traction next week after those who've been in Durham get home.
How do you think we can move forward with this proposal for the website working group?
@pauloxnet I'm not sure who makes up the current group that maintains or has responsibility for the website, but I think input from them is key to progression - though I think you're part of that group?
I'm happy to be involved, though I don't have to be if the current group are happy to just taken on this more formal state of a working group. I mostly raised this as a means to get the process moving after a discussion on mastodon that this would be a good group to form.
I think once there's an idea of who might be involved, I think a draft charter could then be started.
I’m not sure who can see the list of members at @django/djangoproject-com-maintainters, so for context this is 9 people:
| Username | Name |
|---|---|
| @nessita | nessita |
| @camilonova | Camilo Nova |
| @pauloxnet | Paolo Melchiorre |
| @cgl | Çağıl Uluşahin |
| @felixxm | Mariusz Felisiak |
| @CuriousLearner | Sanyam Khurana |
| @ronnzw | Ron Maravanyika |
| @sabderemane | Sarah Abderemane |
| @logankilpatrick | Logan Kilpatrick |
| ~~@carltongibson~~ | ~~Carlton Gibson~~ |
@carltongibson @nessita @camilonova @pauloxnet @cgl @felixxm @CuriousLearner @ronnzw @sabderemane @logankilpatrick what do you think? re the comments from @jacobian, @pauloxnet, @marksweb – do you think this existing group should be converted into a working group, or do something else?
I don’t seem to have access to enough of the site’s admin to check who else might be managing the site to cc into this discussion – could someone else do that?
I’ve asked around and have been told @django/ops-team currently manages blog additions on behalf of people who don’t have direct access to the site. With that in mind, @tobiasmcnulty @timgraham @MarkusH @felixxm, what are your thoughts on whether / how to do those content management duties in the working group model? Would you retain this role, or hand it over to a working group, or share it?
...do you think this existing group should be converted into a working group, or do something else?
I would ask those folks if they'd like to join the initial wave, and then convert it yes.
Given it's very nearly the solstice, I need to take an amnesty and step back from involvement. (It's been a bit of a year.) Happy if folks want an opinion on a specific query, but I don't have the capacity to help steer the site forward right now. 💝 (Update: I removed myself from the team. ✅)
do you think this existing group should be converted into a working group, or do something else?
Sounds good. I would like to be a part of this working group.
I think that’s a good idea. You can add me
On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 at 17:15, Thibaud Colas @.***> wrote:
I’m not sure who can see the list of members at @django/djangoproject-com-maintainters https://github.com/orgs/django/teams/djangoproject-com-maintainters, so for context this is 10 people: Username Name @carltongibson https://github.com/carltongibson Carlton Gibson @nessita https://github.com/nessita nessita @camilonova https://github.com/camilonova Camilo Nova @pauloxnet https://github.com/pauloxnet Paolo Melchiorre @cgl https://github.com/cgl Çağıl Uluşahin @felixxm https://github.com/felixxm Mariusz Felisiak @CuriousLearner https://github.com/CuriousLearner Sanyam Khurana @ronnzw https://github.com/ronnzw Ron Maravanyika @sabderemane https://github.com/sabderemane Sarah Abderemane @logankilpatrick https://github.com/logankilpatrick Logan Kilpatrick
@carltongibson https://github.com/carltongibson @nessita https://github.com/nessita @camilonova https://github.com/camilonova @pauloxnet https://github.com/pauloxnet @cgl https://github.com/cgl @felixxm https://github.com/felixxm @CuriousLearner https://github.com/CuriousLearner @ronnzw https://github.com/ronnzw @sabderemane https://github.com/sabderemane @logankilpatrick https://github.com/logankilpatrick what do you think? re the comments from @jacobian https://github.com/jacobian, @pauloxnet https://github.com/pauloxnet, @marksweb https://github.com/marksweb – do you think this existing group should be converted into a working group, or do something else?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/django/dsf-working-groups/issues/2#issuecomment-1860781017, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AECLUX4MA3GZLZRALVVXIB3YKBM2XAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6HSTRXKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNRQG44DCMBRG4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Hi Thibaud, I'm happy to go with the group on this one. I think the number of posts is pretty small, and sometimes it makes more sense for the Board to post (for example, a DjangoCon announcement).
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 10:52 AM Thibaud Colas @.***> wrote:
I’ve asked around and have been told @django/ops-team https://github.com/orgs/django/teams/ops-team currently manages blog additions on behalf of people who don’t have direct access to the site. With that in mind, @tobiasmcnulty https://github.com/tobiasmcnulty @timgraham https://github.com/timgraham @MarkusH https://github.com/MarkusH @felixxm https://github.com/felixxm, what are your thoughts on whether / how to do those content management duties in the working group model? Would you retain this role, or hand it over to a working group, or share it?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/django/dsf-working-groups/issues/2#issuecomment-1860875429, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABHDBDSULNV3CMA2FMXEOLYKBRDDAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6HSTRXKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNRQHA3TKNBSHE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Happy new year everyone! If I understand the steps correctly, we have plenty enough people interested in this. Now we need to write a proposal, including a draft charter as @jacobian mentioned.
Who’s up for doing this?
See #6 as a recent example. If anyone is keen to write the proposal and does so soon enough, then we have two board members who have expressed interest (me and @sabderemane), who can take it to the DSF board for review at the next board meeting on Thursday next week.
Separately, I’ve asked the ops team who publishes articles on the site, and have been told this isn’t normally part of their remit. It’s just a last resort.
Happy new year everyone! If I understand the steps correctly, we have plenty enough people interested in this. Now we need to write a proposal, including a draft charter as @jacobian mentioned.
Who’s up for doing this?
See #6 as a recent example. If anyone is keen to write the proposal and does so soon enough, then we have two board members who have expressed interest (me and @sabderemane), who can take it to the DSF board for review at the next board meeting on Thursday next week.
Separately, I’ve asked the ops team who publishes articles on the site, and have been told this isn’t normally part of their remit. It’s just a last resort.
I'm happy to run with this @thibaudcolas & @jacobian.
I have created a PR #10 for the website working group. Can l ask members to review it and give some sort of approval if you agree. The initial members are: @sabderemane, @easherma-truth , @marksweb , @jcjudkins, @pauloxnet, @CuriousLearner, @tobiasmcnulty & me. If l have left anyone my apologies just indicate and l will add you.
Outstanding items:
- Where to post comms (Slack/ mailing list)
- Where can users join the group (currently mailing list)
- Selecting Chair & Co-chair
From the guide it is highlighted that everything doesn't have to be completed at this point but @thibaudcolas who is willing to take this to the board on their next meeting which is on the 8th of February 2024 suggested that we should have everything in place if possible.
@ronnzw go team! 🙌 From private discussions, @cgl is keen to be your Board Liaison, and @sabderemane and I to join as members.
I think you might be referring to this from the guide:
Don't worry about getting it all in the first pass; you're welcome to leave some fields as "todo", and come back and edit the PR later to add that info.
This just means it’s fine for your first drafts to have information missing. What I say is that the proposal has to be complete (unless there’s a good reason not to I suppose) for the board to review. See under decision-making:
After your proposal is complete, notify the board, via your board liaison, that it's ready to be reviewed.
Hi folks!
I see that the initial membership size for the WG is 9.
Initial membership
Chair: Sarah Abderemane Co-Chair: Saptak Sengupta Board Liaison (must be an active Board member; may be the same as Chair/Co-Chair): Sarah Abderemane Other members: Eric Sherman Mark Walker Jason Judkins Paolo Melchiorre Sanyam Khurana Tobias McNulty Ron Maravanyika
I'm interested in joining this WG if it's justifiable to add another member.
