doc: update review guidelines for ambassadors #66
Conversation
Refs: nodejs/node#56589 Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
| @@ -8,3 +8,6 @@ Currently, only the following automated Bluesky content is allowed: | |||
| - Posts and Reposts of new features / website content / requests for community help or engagement, etc. | |||
| - Should be proof-read/reviewed by at least 1 member of `@nodejs/tsc` before being reposted. | |||
| - Posts used to verify the automation itself, if considered appropriate. | |||
| - Posts from Node.js ambassadors. As outlined in the | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be grouped together with the
Posts and Reposts of new features / website content / requests for community help or engagement, etc.
Or do we allow them to repost without proof-reading from someone from the project? I thought the ambassador program is aimed at creating a venue for content creators to get reviews and promote verified content?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I might have misunderstood what the list meant. I did not mean that the respost did not need review. Is that list meant to be things that are posted without the review process?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To possibly answer the question depending on what the list is meant to be.
Ambassadors are asked to share content in advance as outlined in https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/advocacy-ambassador-program.md#reviewing-content, but we trust them to do that. Once they are at the point of requesting a re-post or post mentioning content the assumption is that they have done what is outlined in the ambassador program and we can post/repost without validing referenced content. So any review/comments on the content itself should be in the nodejs/ambassadors repository versus the bluesky repository.
Reviews/comment on a request for a post (verus a repost) still make sense in this repo as additional eyes on the post before it goes out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this came from the fact that this list originally just listed no-brainer items (release announcements, automation verification), and then other less no-brainer-items are added (i.e. this line about blog posts etc.). It seems the ambassador program document implies that they can just promote content if no one responds to the review request? Is anyone actively responding to the review requests?
IMO it would make a bit more sense to structure it now as two sections: actions where reviews are optional (I think reposts of release announcements by releasers and exceptional actions for verifying/fixing the automation, should they arise, fall into this category), and actions that need to be reviewed (technical content like blog posts, no matter it's from the ambassador program or not).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems the ambassador program document implies that they can just promote content if no one responds to the review request? Is anyone actively responding to the review requests?
Correct the premise is that like core collaborators we trust them to do the right thing, while at the same time providing the opportunity for people to comment/suggest without making it mandatory as that could easily become a bottleneck.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd agree that two lists would make sense as its good to document all kinds of content we believe its ok to post as info for the reviewers.
Refs: nodejs/node#56589