Skip to content

Review community triage guidance against the internal Triage status #2671

Open

Description

@codeforester

Problem

The accepted Base governance design and implementation plan identify package 8/O10 as a required deliverable. This issue translates that package into a reviewed, bounded issue/PR train; it does not authorize implementation before the issue reaches Ready.

Expected behavior

Review docs/community-triage.md against the accepted internal lifecycle, where Triage follows Backlog and means analysis/readiness work. Decide whether public community intake guidance should stay distinct, be clarified, or be updated. This is a decision/recommendation issue; do not change public wording until the maintainer accepts the disposition.

Scope and non-goals

Scope: Review docs/community-triage.md against the accepted internal lifecycle, where Triage follows Backlog and means analysis/readiness work. Decide whether public community intake guidance should stay distinct, be clarified, or be updated. This is a decision/recommendation issue; do not change public wording until the maintainer accepts the disposition.

Non-goals: Do not silently expand scope, activate unreviewed policy, mirror issue fields onto PRs, grant agents merge/release authority, or make changes outside the named affected areas. Any new product decision or materially new work gets a separate issue and decision record.

Affected areas

Impact and evidence

  1. Product intent: Implements only the accepted governance design and plan; any product-requirement change must be filed separately.
  2. Architecture and contracts: Destination is the package-specific section of the merged governance design/implementation plan plus the affected canonical contract named above.
  3. User guidance: The issue identifies likely guidance paths; the implementation PR must name updated user/FAQ/README paths or give a change-specific reason why none is affected.
  4. CLI/API and reference: The affected-area list determines whether CLI/API/reference docs change; the implementation PR must cite the exact reference path or justify no impact.
  5. Operations and safety: No privileged automation or merge authority is implied; the PR must list operational/security effects and any rollback.
  6. Validation and testing: The issue lists the planned tests; the PR must report executed validation and explain any unavailable test.
  7. Examples and downstream use: The implementation PR must identify affected examples/consumers or give evidence that this change has no downstream surface.
  8. Governance and contributor process: This package changes or preserves the contributor/governance contract as described in Scope; links must point to the canonical rules.
  9. Decision records: No new decision is accepted by this issue; any durable deviation requires a proposed decision record and explicit maintainer acceptance.
  10. Release notes: The PR must include a user-facing release-note line or a reasoned none; this issue does not pre-decide that disposition.

These are issue-stage dispositions to refine during Triage. Before Ready, every category must have its exact destination or evidence-based no-impact reason; the PR repeats the ten-category evidence for actual changes.

Open questions

  • None known. If implementation exposes an unresolved contract, return this issue to Triage and record the decision before implementation continues.

Plan

  • S1: One focused PR for this issue. Use Fixes #N only if no additional slice is needed; if the maintainer approves multiple PRs, name each S1…Sn here before the first is opened and use Part of #N.
  • Dependencies: None known.
  • Acceptance criteria:
  • The review compares each public use of triage with the internal Project status and cites exact sections.
  • A maintainer-approved disposition is recorded: retain distinct meanings, clarify wording, or propose a separate doc PR.
  • No status/schema or community doc change is made without that recorded decision.
  • Any implementation follow-up is filed as a separate issue/PR with an impact map.
  • Validation:
  • Read the current community guide and internal workflow/status definitions at the reviewed revisions.
  • Check the proposed disposition for contributor-facing ambiguity and link validity.
  • Risks and rollback: Public and internal uses of triage may be conflated; preserve separate terms or clearly label context. No rollback needed until a later doc PR.
  • Decision impact: No decision is accepted merely by implementing the issue. Record the relevant accepted decision/ADR and file a superseding record if the maintainer approves a change.

Activity

  1. self-assigned this
    on Nov 10, 2026
  2. moved this to Triage in baseon Nov 10, 2026
  3. moved this from Triage to Backlog in baseon Nov 10, 2026
  4. moved this from Backlog to Triage in baseon Nov 10, 2026
  5. added this to the v1.11.0 milestone on Nov 11, 2026
  6. moved this from Triage to Backlog in baseon Nov 11, 2026
  7. codeforester commented on Nov 11, 2026

    @codeforester
    CollaboratorAuthor

    Pre-Triage review against the accepted plan (#2664, tracker #2665)

    1. Include .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/support.yml and the chooser links in config.yml in the review. They are the public intake path. Also include tests/test_community_triage_docs.py, which asserts the current wording.
    2. This issue blocks Migrate the shared Project schema and Base Project values #2672, but only Migrate the shared Project schema and Base Project values #2672's redefinition of Status needs this decision; the Priority and Risk tier migration doesn't. See the slicing suggestion on Migrate the shared Project schema and Base Project values #2672.

    Contract text. The Impact, Scope and Open questions sections are still the shared template text. The Impact section is identical in 24 of #2666–#2690, and Scope repeats Expected behavior. That's fine in Backlog. Before Ready, replace each with this issue's own dispositions. This issue is small, but category 3 (public contributor guidance) has a real impact. Name the paths it affects.

    Claude Code (Opus 5.5), reviewing from Ramesh's account at his request. This review comes before Triage, so it is not an issue-loop round.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

documentationDocumentation improvements

Type

Projects

  • Status
    Backlog

Milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions