Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[request_renewal.md] doesn't require responsible individual #30

Open
willkg opened this issue Nov 1, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

[request_renewal.md] doesn't require responsible individual #30

willkg opened this issue Nov 1, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@willkg
Copy link
Member

willkg commented Nov 1, 2021

If a probe is being renewed and the expiration is being changed to forever, then the requester needs to specify a responsible individual.

The request.md form has this:

data-review/request.md

Lines 44 to 50 in fe0b96a

7) How long will this data be collected? Choose one of the following:
* This is scoped to a time-limited experiment/project until date MM-DD-YYYY.
* I want this data to be collected for 6 months initially (potentially renewable).
* I want to permanently monitor this data. (put someone’s name here)

7) How long will this data be collected?  Choose one of the following:

* This is scoped to a time-limited experiment/project until date MM-DD-YYYY.

* I want this data to be collected for 6 months initially (potentially renewable).

* I want to permanently monitor this data. (put someone’s name here)

The request_renewal.md form has:

2) When will this collection now expire?

2) When will this collection now expire?

I claim the two should be in sync and we should use the same language.

@chutten
Copy link
Contributor

chutten commented Nov 3, 2021

Optionally, we could highlight in the template that the short form cannot be used to "renew to permanent". This is how I've been treating it (to make an expiring metric permanent requires The Full Form) as an act with some small organizational friction encouraging renewal over "permanentizing"

@willkg
Copy link
Member Author

willkg commented Nov 3, 2021

That makes sense to me.

I don't know how decisions work here, but I can make the change when it's decided.

@chutten
Copy link
Contributor

chutten commented Nov 3, 2021

There are async and sync ways:

ASYNC

Post a link to this thread (and a precis) with a timeline ("If I don't hear objections by Thursday EOD, I'll be making this change on Friday") to Slack#data-stewards and/or #data-stewards:mozilla.org, and without objection ship your change (I'll happily review).

SYNC

Wait for the next Data Steward monthly meeting and add this as an agenda item. You can get assent from attendees. Without objection ship your change (I'll happily review).


All else fails, if someone's on PTO and objects later we can come in and revert. Mutability works both ways : )

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants