Continuation of Package Development

[nickrsan]

@ryanpeek @alyssaobester @kklausmeyer, @kristaniguchi

I'm leaving CWS on April 30th and won't be able to officially support the package beyond that. While I will always be happy to provide any handoff information I can, I'm trying to make sure that if this becomes a tool that's important for any CEFF users, that there are people who can make bugfixes, and potentially even enhancements. I know Ryan knows his way around this codebase since he has been a part of its development, but he is also highly loaded up with work for the forseeable future. Kris, do you know if there is anyone at SCCWRP, whether you or someone else, who might be interested in contributing bugfixes, etc to this package in the future? Kirk, is this something that would belong with your unit at TNC? I'll do my best to leave it in a maintainable state, and hope to make some changes in the future to write it up for publication, but am not yet sure what time I'll be able to dedicate to it. Just wanted to get this discussion started so that we can figure out where future stewardship of the package belongs. Thanks!

[kristaniguchi]

@nickrsan thank you so much for your work on all of this! You have done a fantastic job and I appreciate all of the time you've spend on updates and maintenance. I unfortunately don't have the capacity to take on maintaining the package, but I could talk with Eric and others to see what the best path moving forward would be. Thanks and I'll get back to you soon

[ryanpeek]

@nickrsan Thanks for all the work you've put into this! I can definitely try to help out, but odds are I'm not going to be super flexible in dealing with things on a rapid timescale. I'd also say my skillset for some of the codebase may not be ideal, so would be good to have some additional programming power. :) I'll keep an eye on things, and help out where I can, but it would be good to have some additional options to keep this up and running.

[kklausmeyer]

Hi all- I spoke with our developer Falk (@postfalk) and he is willing to help out on maintaining this project with @ryanpeek . Thanks @nickrsan for all your work on this!

[postfalk]

So the best way forward would be to create a new repo and leave the old one (archived) in place (to assure that we don't break other peoples bootstrap pipelines). We could add a line, that the project moved to a new location underneath the title line. I have to look into it how to make sure that everything, e.g. issues work.

If breaking other peoples workflows is less of a concern we could just transfer the repo.

What do you think would be the best way forward?

[nickrsan]

Hi @postfalk and @kklausmeyer thanks for your willingness to be a part of this! I should clarify - we'd like to keep the repository here since it's a central spot for code related to the CEFF process, and also Ryan and I may still be able to work on it, but can't guarantee we'll be able to make fixes or enhancements in reasonable timeframes. We've been wanting to expand the pool of developers on this project for a while so that we're put in this kind of situation when we lose developers if people start using the package more widely, so it seemed like a good time!

My preference would be that we either 1) We use a Pull Request model where you fork the code to a working location, then submit Pull Requests back to the main repo that Ryan can merge, or 2) We add you to the CEFF-Tech organization (which includes people from many orgs already) with commit access to the repository so you can work directly on it. @ryanpeek do you have any preferences for how we proceed here?

[postfalk]

So in short, you will remain the maintainer. That is ok with me. Falk

…

________________________________ From: Nick Santos <notifications@github.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:52 PM To: ceff-tech/ffc_api_client <ffc_api_client@noreply.github.com> Cc: Falk Schuetzenmeister <falk.schuetzenmeister@TNC.ORG>; Mention <mention@noreply.github.com> Subject: Re: [ceff-tech/ffc_api_client] Continuation of Package Development (#57) Hi @postfalk<https://github.com/postfalk> and @kklausmeyer<https://github.com/kklausmeyer> thanks for your willingness to be a part of this! I should clarify - we'd like to keep the repository here since it's a central spot for code related to the CEFF process, and also Ryan and I may still be able to work on it, but can't guarantee we'll be able to make fixes or enhancements in reasonable timeframes. We've been wanting to expand the pool of developers on this project for a while so that we're put in this kind of situation when we lose developers if people start using the package more widely, so it seemed like a good time! My preference would be that we either 1) We use a Pull Request model where you fork the code to a working location, then submit Pull Requests back to the main repo that Ryan can merge, or 2) We add you to the CEFF-Tech organization (which includes people from many orgs already) with commit access to the repository so you can work directly on it. @ryanpeek<https://github.com/ryanpeek> do you have any preferences for how we proceed here? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#57 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAWHRZ2URNQZOTUXZKS5TMLROYLFXANCNFSM4MOTW75Q>.