Add OMERO.server as an OME Registered Project - #6
Conversation
sbesson
changed the title
| - Manage the distribution of release artifacts and Docker images | ||
| - Maintain a reference documentation covering the installation of the application and the usage of the API | ||
| - **Out of scope:** | ||
| - OMERO.server extensions such as micro-services |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems to me that one nice way of defining the Scope of the Project is to list the repos that are included. I see that these are already listed under the charter/README.md, but maybe here is a better place?
cc @knabar Same comment for OMERO.web's roster - listing of repos would be nice.
Broader question: is it the case that all of OME's "maintained/active" repos should fall under the scope of one of the ORPs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems to me that one nice way of defining the Scope of the Project is to list the repos that are included. I see that these are already listed under the charter/README.md, but maybe here is a better place?
That's a good point. I certainly felt like the list of repositories/components associated with a Registered Project has some relationship with its scope. I will look into whether these sections can be rearranged.
Broader question: is it the case that all of OME's "maintained/active" repos should fall under the scope of one of the ORPs?
That's a great question but outside the scope of an individual ORP declaration. The outcome of registering these is that it will certainly highlight all repositories that are not associated with an ORP. If there is a need for a proposal for this, I would suggest a dedicated issue on the OME governance repository.
| contributions** aligned with the goals of the project and the broader OME | ||
| mission. | ||
|
|
||
| ## **2. Scope of the Project** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
https://github.com/ome/governance/tree/main/projects#3-roles-and-responsibilities says that
Each Registered Project shall:
- Maintain a charter describing its scope and governance.
- Maintain a roster identifying its maintainers and other formal roles.
suggesting that the "scope" section should go under the "charter" rather than under "roster"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree there is a discrepancy between the content of this section and the current ORP template and the draft ORPs. I would also naturally tend to define the scope at the charter level and leave the roster focused on the current list of core developers, maintainers etc
Happy to adjust the text and open a PR against the draft ORP template but it would be useful to hear the view of the OME Management body first.
2 participants
Similar to #3 and #5, this is the initial draft for the OMERO.server OME Register Project including the charter and the initial roster based on the current state of the contributions.