Discussion thread for AGP-A: Community Review Period
This seems very similar to the Aragon Voting Gauntlet that I proposed earlier. Reading through the GitHub PR, I don’t see any specifics as to how long the review window should be. Did you have ideas on this and/or would you be open to merging the two proposals into one?
Yes @burrrata the intention is for this to close Issue #54 in the repo as it addresses the main concern. If you read the changes made in the associated PR you’ll see I’ve specified a community review period of one week, starting three weeks before the AN vote.
This is positive so we would all be able to have sufficient time to analyze the different proposals before racing into casting a vote…
This would be a very welcome change in my opinion. So far most proposals have been submitted near the deadline and locked immediately. If people create proposals and start discussions earlier I think that will result in better proposals and a more informed community.
Hopefully it will not result in people just posting stubs for the initial deadline, and then making major changes just prior to the final deadline–but that would be no worse than the current situation so it seems like a worthwhile change.
I think this sounds like a great idea!
A little confused by this. AGP-1 Stage 2 says that first one should create an Issue and forum post for discussion, then submit a PR afterwards. You submitted your PR at the same time as you posted to the forum. You’re also saying that you’re closing my open Issue, but there has been no discussion on that Issue. Also you didn’t list me as a co-author for the AGP, which would make sense if you’re building off of my open Issue and submitting a PR to close it. What’s up with all that?
I’ll try to answer these one at a time:
Stage 2 says that first one should create an Issue and forum post for discussion, then submit a PR afterwards. You submitted your PR at the same time as you posted to the forum.
I have already seen / received directly many comments that support a proposal like this so I did not feel the need to start a general conversation about the proposal in an issue or forum thread before submitting the PR and moving the proposal to Stage III. Plus, it was easiest for me to submit the proposal as a PR so people can compare the changes with the full APG-1 text as context.
You’re also saying that you’re closing my open Issue, but there has been no discussion on that Issue.
Discussion is not required to close an issue, but if you believe the PR does not adequately address your issue then we can discuss that here or you can leave a review on the PR with suggestions that would help me close the issue. (I can also get rid of the reference to your issue if it’s easier to keep them separate/ unrelated.)
Also you didn’t list me as a co-author for the AGP, which would make sense if you’re building off of my open Issue and submitting a PR to close it.
If you had actually helped write the text in the AGP, then it would make sense to add you as a co-author (and I would be remiss to exclude you in that case). But since you did not actually write any of the text, you are not actually a co-author. (Also, as mentioned earlier in this comment this AGP is based off of several comments I have seen/ received directly, including your issue #54, suggesting that a mandatory review period would be a welcome change.)
For the record, this isn’t how co-authorship of academic papers work. But indeed I think this AGP is generic enough that I don’t see the qualms here.
What is the process for AGP collaboration though? Like I created the thread for changing the fiscal year, and I don’t think anyone else proposed that change in the manner that I proposed it (and yours was very close). But I wasn’t reached out to “co-author” an AGP (even though my thread was linked in the discussion post). Curious how this should work in general.
A ‘Contributor’ acknowledgment is quite common in research papers, for those not quite Co-Authors. To receive credit, there’s also an expectation of taking responsibility for the work itself, in my experience.
Splitting this off into another thread: