No clear SOP for changes to website

[standage]

As far as I can tell, @ctb has done most if not all work on the lab website since moving to Davis. @camillescott has some cool improvements in #84 awaiting review and approval, and @ljcohen and I recently made a small first step toward curating a list of links to all of our training resources in #85.

No standard operating procedures have been laid out for changes to the website. It looks like the repo is public, which means anyone in the world can submit a pull request. What are the criteria for review and acceptance? Who can pull the trigger to merge a pull request? Under what circumstances, if any, does Our Fearless Leader need to be involved?

Or, since the website is not versioned and is easy to fix, am I just thinking too hard about this? Do we just go with "lazy consensus" as our guiding principle?

[ctb]

I make the final decisions, esp since I'm the only person with login access to the box with the current web site :)

[standage]

Ahh, I see. I had assumed the website would be automatically updated when changes are merged, but I guess that just shows how much I've come to rely on things like ReadTheDocs and Github's Jekyll integration.

So, just to be clear: SOP is "ping Titus incessantly until he merges"? ;-)

[ctb]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:50:25PM -0700, Daniel Standage wrote: Ahh, I see. I had assumed the website would be automatically updated when changes are merged, but I guess that just shows how much I've come to rely on things like ReadTheDocs and Github's Jekyll integration. So, just to be clear: SOP is "ping Titus incessantly until he merges"? ;-)

Indeed.

[standage]

Now to get real meta: should we document this on the website? Word-of-mouth might work for a group our size in the short term, but institutional wisdom of this sort has a short shelf life in my experience.