You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As there is more and more activity and topics being discussed in the working groups, it is sometimes hard for the community to catch up with everything that's happening in the GraphQL world.
This is a proposal to run a dedicated "Issue club" meeting to go over the issues, close them, ask for clarification when needed and ensure they are correctly labeled.
The process is a bit tedious but from experience has lots of value in terms of how it allows to nurture a community and make the projects overall look more approachable.
It's also a good way for more active contributors to get a "vibe check" of what's currently happening.
For starters, I would suggest:
a 1h quaterly review
covering both graphql-wg and graphql-spec.
Individual working groups (nullability, http, incremental delivery, etc...) would stay separate.
We could also decide to run this as part of the monthly meetings (although that may take a good chunk of them).
Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As there is more and more activity and topics being discussed in the working groups, it is sometimes hard for the community to catch up with everything that's happening in the GraphQL world.
This is a proposal to run a dedicated "Issue club" meeting to go over the issues, close them, ask for clarification when needed and ensure they are correctly labeled.
The process is a bit tedious but from experience has lots of value in terms of how it allows to nurture a community and make the projects overall look more approachable.
It's also a good way for more active contributors to get a "vibe check" of what's currently happening.
For starters, I would suggest:
graphql-wg
andgraphql-spec
.Individual working groups (nullability, http, incremental delivery, etc...) would stay separate.
We could also decide to run this as part of the monthly meetings (although that may take a good chunk of them).
Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: