Contributing Guidelines - First Draft (Discuss) #278
Conversation
Hello folks, here is a suggestion for the contributing guidelines to this repository. This is obviously based on the guidelines we use for Core (https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md), with changes to fit the specifics of a website repository. The purpose of these guidelines is: - Add transparency to the review process - Have a written document *future* actions can be matched against - Introduce simple rules about PRs (mostly the fact PRs must be focused, whenever possible, and not make tracking history of the content difficult) - Help to avoid that no individual, group of individuals, or organization can take full control over the repository (these guidelines can only do so much in that sense, since other factors like ownership of the domain come into play) - Help to prevent blunders that we all make once in a while, but that can have serious repercussions for the entire community when they are published on Dogecoin.com Please note, to avoid any tension: this is not just a response to specific incident, or meant to be an attack against any individual or group, but something that I think might help fulfill the mission of this website the way many of you have envisioned it even before it was pushed live on Dogecoin.com. I had the privilege to work with Richard, Tim and others on the baseline of the Dogepedia, and our purpose was to create something upon which other shibes would expand upon for years to come. And I know this sentiment was shared also by all contributors who have worked so incredibly hard on this website, from within and without the Foundation, each according to their possibilities. These guidelines are also to protect their efforts. This is a first draft, to kickstart the discussion.
MishaBoar
changed the title
Removed the confusing (and wrong) paragraph attempting to simplifying contributions for content writers, as per discussion here: #278 (comment)
| The following contributions must come with significant discussion, happening in public and accessible to all, before | ||
| approval and merge: | ||
|
|
||
| - Major structural changes | ||
| - Major content changes | ||
| - Linking to third-party resources |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
About this. Will the discussing be on GitHub?
How significant should be the discussion?
Example, Wallets that links to third-party resources there are already some pending for review for some time, how should it be handle if nobody else discuss about it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We certainly do not have enough activity on this Github, but I think that when it comes to wallets the only thing you can do is to wait for others to share their opinion.
Very very difficult to vouch for a wallet, for example, when they have not been audited by reliable third parties and still do not have a long enough track record. While you have disclaimers in place in the wallet list, I do feel queasy saying "that's OK". You will see the resources I added in the "resources" section (current version was really just little more than a stub) were mostly relatively risk-free picks.
Facing the same issue on Twitter right now, with some wallet manufacturers offering to send me their (very expensive) wallets, with some interesting features regarding backup management, but that I would not be able to review properly with my means. Too big of a responsibility.
Hello folks,
here is a suggestion for the contributing guidelines to this repository. This is obviously based on the guidelines we use for Core (https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md), with changes to fit the specifics of a website repository.
The purpose of these guidelines is:
Please note, to avoid any tension: this is not just a response to specific incident, or meant to be an attack against any individual or group, but something that I think might help fulfill the mission of this website the way many of you have envisioned it even before it was pushed live on Dogecoin.com. I had the privilege to work as a volunteer with Richard, Tim and others on the baseline of the Dogepedia, and our purpose was to create something that other shibes would expand upon, rewrite, and rethink as needed, for years to come. And I know this sentiment was shared also by all contributors who have worked so incredibly hard on this website, from within and without the Foundation, the volunteers, the translators, each according to their possibilities. These guidelines are also to protect their efforts.
This is a first draft, to kickstart the discussion.