Plan for the config repo

[mrmelbert]

We have a new repository which anyone can PR config changes to. It will be YOUR PREROGATIVE to merge PRs here, which means it's also your prerogative to decide how it gets used.

https://github.com/tgstation-operations/server-config

- Are policy threads required before making a PR?
- Will anyone's PRs be considered, or just admins? Head admins? If limited to admins, what about maintainers?
- Will merging require a majority? Or full agreement?
- Are reverts allowed?

These are just a few sample questions. The ultimate question is:

How do YOU think this should be managed in YOUR term?

[Ezel]

We have a new repository which anyone can PR config changes to. It will be YOUR PREROGATIVE to merge PRs here, which means it's also your prerogative to decide how it gets used.

https://github.com/tgstation-operations/server-config

- Are policy threads required before making a PR?
- Will anyone's PRs be considered, or just admins? Head admins? If limited to admins, what about maintainers?
- Will merging require a majority? Or full agreement?
- Are reverts allowed?

These are just a few sample questions. The ultimate question is:

How do YOU think this should be managed in YOUR term?

- Are policy threads required before making a PR?
I Would agree to limiting it to policy threads to make PRs since configs wouldn't really alter anything else but config side so its mostly anything outside the main code

- Will anyone's PRs be considered, or just admins? Head admins? If limited to admins, what about maintainers?
I think anyone should be able to make PR's no harm in allowing it, since pr's have to be approved anyways.

- Will merging require a majority? Or full agreement?
I think its wise to make it require a full agreement

- Are reverts allowed?
They would be but i think it will fall back on full agreement requirement just as merging does

[kinnebian]

Hello! As you can see- I've actually already worked on my promise to propose changes to dynamic through a pull-request on this repository, and have proposed it the headmin team. I think Ezel has already surmised how the system should be used- and I find myself in agreement with their points.

[TheRex9001]

I believe policy discussions should be required as to keep the arguing to one platform, and then everyone can make prs, just need approval and 3/3 for merges and reverts

[Striders13]

fuck the bureaucracy, if we agree on something or wanna do something just push a change directly

[RaveRadbury]

This is so cool, what a development for transparency!

- Are policy threads required before making a PR?
Unless we're doing it or we've requested it, yeah. It's fun to discuss! I can see how github could be a new space to discuss config changes. That could be something worth exploring.

- Will anyone's PRs be considered, or just admins? Head admins? If limited to admins, what about maintainers?
Whatever makes the needed change, if someone wants to PR a config change we need to make and we're on mobile that's pretty effective

- Will merging require a majority? Or full agreement?
I'll follow charter on that, I'd lump it with policy approval

- Are reverts allowed?
I feel like this is more an issue of accounting than anything? Like, a lot of config changes are toggles and lists, we'd just be PRing over that. Not sure why we'd need to revert much or what advantage that would provide.

- How do YOU think this should be managed in YOUR term?
Manage it the same way we managed config changes in other terms. I could see maybe trying to have discourse on the github instead of in policy threads but I don't want to push us into it. If someone comes up with an absolutely riveting PR body for a 1 line config change and sparks cool discussion that would be something. If it happens a lot, then that'd be a reason to change things.

[iansdoor]

- Are policy threads required before making a PR?
Yes, for the fact that those PR changes affect the community as a whole, if the issue is risen enough. There needs to be polling answers to shift through for consideration to keep the PR full time. Example being the beheaded.

- Will anyone's PRs be considered, or just admins? Head admins? If limited to admins, what about maintainers?
If they got the GPB, are asking to test merge the idea with proper reasoning of what they wish to see from the changes, and policy backing that isn't purely bias, then sure. I think that PR would be worth to try. My reasoning would be it would give a shake up to stale meta for older players.

- Will merging require a majority? Or full agreement?
Depends on how major the ask is and if it would be seen or used by every active player, would that require full agreement of all headmins.

- Are reverts allowed?
Definitely, they are tests to see the changes in action, and do they match up to the results of what was considered. If its not liked by admins and players on the ground, then revert would be pulled and reconsidered immediately. There cannot be enough justification towards PR remaining as is.

How do YOU think this should be managed in YOUR term?
I would prefer the community to understand where each decision comes from and if they are willing to participate, have a voice to input towards placeholder PR.

Hopefully, there would be a nice snail crawl change, because they are looking real sad.
I dislike editing over a post, I made. Instead, there will be a new one.

[xzero314]

Interesting to see that the config will be transparent.

The way I see it working. Needing a policy Thread/Headmin approval is one in the same.

You want to PR a config change. You make a policy thread. Headmins decide on it by a vote. If it gets two Headmins in on it then you are good to go. With Reverts possible at any time if it turns out that the change doesn't work out.

If changes do get tested or approved they would need time to cook and see how it pans out so I think it would have to be a slow process.

[TheRex9001]

Ok knowing a bit more now, regular config rules, one headmin to merge small stuff, all three for big shit like non human heads, majority for reverts maybe. Policy thread for discussion

[iansdoor]

- Are policy threads required before making a PR?

I am flat out say, no for the reason that there would be a split in the conversation in four ways github/discord/forums/game server. Instead, I would gather the responses from a poll and sort them out over their responses. If there is to be open policy thread regarding the information, so be it, but it will not be the main contributor to where the needle lies, between what is good or bad for the server. The feedback from the players is always the right choice if they partipate and have faith, which they always welcomed to ask questions.

- Will anyone's PRs be considered, or just admins? Head admins? If limited to admins, what about maintainers?

Unsure, The PR's would have to be discussed and voted by headmin at the end. So it feels like a lose situation that anyone to open a PR, then open a discussion have run its course to a conclusion and at the end, it doesn't have majority, so it would buried/closed afterwards. I do respect anyone that puts in the time and effort towards the PR, it would be considered more favorably as long as the thought process has an intended goal in their mind.

- Will merging require a majority? Or full agreement?

I will not change my answer to much, Depends on the topic and how much affects the players in whole. Majority for minor changes and full agreement that impact game loop and its population.

- Are reverts allowed?

Yes, I would appreciate another poll after a certain time to see if those answers above changed from what they were initially.

How do YOU think this should be managed in YOUR term?

Honestly, with iain0, they would have a level headed response to any discussion, given time and the term itself would depend on if the initial direction would be more towards transparency of our conversation, which will be messy at first. Otherwise, the feedback directly from players and admins, who are also players, will be more than enough to have an idea of what may happen.