The structure and documentary content of the forum are important to its usability and maintainability. The forum community has valuable insight on this subject, but hasn't had very efficient channels for communicating the insight to the maintainers of the forum configuration and officially maintained content.
A formal system for proposing and tracking changes to the forum structure and officially maintained content has been set up.
These "assets" are now hosted in a GitHub repository where they can be developed using the powerful collaboration and revision control features:
In addition to issues and pull requests on GitHub, proposals via the forum are welcome as always. The repository only offers additional ways to make proposals that may be more efficient for some contributors.
The forum can also be used for general discussion of proposals submitted via GitHub.
That GIT looks awfully technical and overly complex.
The other GIT channels hardly get any real use and most issues end up in here regardless.
Who decides what an asset is ?
Does this allow you to appropriate others works ?
Have many of my own "assets" if they are considered "stock" replies as do you and others.
We use them as and when we feel fits a need.
Does that mean we cannot use those ?
Using GIT has always been for more advanced people and this precludes a large base of users who don't want to have to dig deeper to find or report a problem.
Just like the "markup/markdown/marktwian"
Hence the categories we currently have here which keep most things easier for that base that mean they don't have to wander the net to do something they can do here anyway.
The responder base here is much larger than the ones Arduino has in GIT.
We are for the most part not under the stricter rules that GIT may employ so can express things better.
Not being offside or rude etc. here but have seen first hand how things can get rejected "just because" or split into so many tiny sub topics they are lost to the mists of time.
Would hope that if this becomes the only de-facto method of change then it is properly reflected in every area, readme, how-to, and so on.
The other GIT channels hardly get any use so why create another when we are looking to simplify things overall.
IMHO it seems like trying to re-invent the wheel and make things harder not easier.
5.1 The User grants to Arduino the non-exclusive, unlimited, transferable, sub-licensable and irrevocable right to use the Content published and/or updated on the Platform as well as to reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish and create derived works, make publicly visible the Content throughout the world using any means and for any purpose and to use the username or the nickname specified in relation to the Content. Should the Content be a software created by the User pursuant to the Contributor License Agreement, such Content shall be subject to the terms of the Contributor License Agreement.
Of course not.
I guess you missed this part of my post:
If it makes things harder for you, just don't use it. It makes thing easier for me so I will use it.
OK so "stock replies are good !
Arduino can use them as a "derivative" is my understanding from the wording but not as a direct replacement for the original. (legal needed)
So only you can make the assertion !
That is very concerning and I suggest you change your workflow to reflect that as it shows collaboration and not a single end point where in effect you are judge jury executioner.
I see some quite basic flaws in the idea as you can at any time decide that only you will make any end decisions.
Suggest end decisions are placed through a review panel which might actually exclude you for quite obvious reasons.
BTW that's not a dig it is because you would be too heavily invested in your own POV.
While I can see the benefits of using a change management tool like Github to get agreement on changes to the forum the biggest challenge is to get enough regular forum members interested in contributing. If I knew the answer to that one I'd have done it long ago.
