Thanks for sharing the opinions folks! I’ve set the vote end date as Friday August, 16 to let people to re-vote if needed
@SteeringCommittee please take a look at the last version of the PR. TL;DR the change was MUST → SHOULD for collection maintainers to be subscribed to their tags.
Please re-vote if needed.
Aren’t we still in the discussion phase? So far there have been arguments for and against requiring a tag.
As we’re moving away from Google Groups in the future, it doesn’t seem to be a bad idea to encourage maintainers to sign up for the forum, and as such I voted yes.
2 Likes
That was added after I made this comment.
it requires a tag but not necessarily a tag-per-collection. It says “or reuse one of existing tags”. It’s not a hard work to take a look at the tags and request one if there’s no appropriate one. It’s like several vmware related collections use the vmware tag or many network collections just use network tag. So it’s not necessarily tag-per-collection
@gotmax23 @briantist @cassell @russoz @markuman @flowerysong In case you didn’t notice that the PR changed, here’s a ping so you have a chance to look at the PR again and potentially change your vote in [Vote ends 2024-08-19] Forum to Ansible community package collection requirements - #2 by Andersson007. The deadline for the vote is on Monday.
3 Likes
Is this still the case? I was confused on reading the PR because it sounded like a group was mandatory, I guess because of the MUST bullet points under it. On re-reading I can see it’s a lowercase can:
In addition, the collection can :ref:`request a forum group<requesting_forum_group>`.
but it might be nice to emphasize that having a group is not required.
English isn’t my first language, but can says to me it’s something you can do but don’t have to do.
I’m not sure if it’s really helpful to emphasize that something isn’t required every time we say can or should.
What’s next? Telling people that must is something people are required to do, and that required means people must do it?
1 Like
I think adding a “If the collection requests or already has a group:” after the line @briantist quoted would make it clearer. WDYT? ([Needs SC vote before merging] Collection requirements: add Forum-related reqs by Andersson007 · Pull Request #1703 · ansible/ansible-documentation · GitHub)
1 Like
when we use SHOULD in this kind of document it’s very attention-grabbing with a specific defined definition, a lowercase can doesn’t have the same emphasis.
In any case, I’m not saying that can is unclear or that the current wording is wrong, I’m just pointing out that on first reading I got the wrong impression, which is arguably entirely on me.
I’m not saying we have to change it, but if I got tripped up maybe someone else did too (or maybe not!).
For reference since you mentioned it English is my first language but that doesn’t make my impression any more important imo, if anything I prefer that things are clearer for non-native speakers (everyone else’s English is fantastic here anyway fwiw).
That sounds useful to me, but if others feel it’s unnecessary I’m ok with leaving it out
I’ve changed my vote to Yes in any case, thanks for the ping!
1 Like
I committed Felix’s suggestion, merged the PR, and closed the poll, thanks everyone!
I’ve heard that there’s an RFC that specifies using MAY for such cases. If anyone wants to change can to MAY or to whatever else, please submit a PR (or I can take a look later).
Anyway, thanks everyone for making the spirit and letter of the requirement much better that was originally proposed!
I’m late to the discussion here, but just as a thought for the future - where tags equal names in raw text (or similar situations) we can configure auto-tagging rules - the body of the first post is checked and matches are applied. We have that right now for eg AWX, it could be expanded further if there’s a need.
1 Like