On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 1:35 AM Ghanshyam Mann <gmann@ghanshyammann.com> wrote:
>

>
> Thanks a lot Rico for all your effort for the SIG help and management.
>
> +1. I like the 'advisory' status which will clear out the difference between inactive and "active but with on-demand services only".
> One question on this status- Does this still include the updates on repo/guidance doc etc ? For Example: if I want to add a few more
> guidelines or changes to current repo/doc-sites etc then this SIG will still go with usual discussion and review process and not
> saying that 'we are in an advisory role so we have closed any repo/doc update'.
>
> It will be good if you can explain those statuses in detail with their scope activity in sig-guidelines doc.

Let's separate patches and add a sig-status.rst file and define each status in detail.

>
> > API SIG
>
> Is it ok to move api-sig to 'advisory'? I think Michael mentioned about some work to finish on traiging the
> current open issues/todo etc. Should we wait for that work to be finished? May be Michael or Dmitry
> can update on the latest status.

It's always up to SIG to tell us what their real status is. And I will not merge that patch until we have chair's +1 from each SIG.

Will ping Michael and Dmitry to ask for their feedback on this.
>
> > complete: SIG completes its mission.
>
> Can we include some status for the inactive SIG who has not completed its mission? something like 'On-Hold' or 'Need-help' etc.
> It will help if anyone looking for that SIG can help or manage. It is more like backlogs for history and reference if same type of problem
> comes and someone wants to form a SIG.

Here's one interesting fact, we alway delete the SIG as soon as it's no longer required. But we make complete status because SIG might need to keep their repo.

We can protentially create a backlog file for SIGs so others can looks up during working on new SIG idea. And this will make sigs.yaml file more clear (contains only forming/active/advisory SIG)