❌ This issue is not open for contribution. Visit Contributing guidelines to learn about the contributing process and how to find suitable issues.
Overview
Contributors open issues asking to be assigned, and pull requests with no issue behind them. We have
no single place to evaluate that work, and no stated turnaround, so each case is handled ad hoc.
Establish GitHub Discussions as the entry point for unplanned work, and the process around it.
Complexity: Medium
Target branch: main
Context
#67 covered two halves. The automation half landed in #103, which acts on the issue a community pull
request closes. This issue tracks the other half, the process, which #67 describes in
#67 (comment).
The reasons recorded there:
- a place to talk about and evaluate work we did not plan
- one pipeline, and somewhere to state our processing times
- the ability to close an issue or pull request we cannot think through right now, while pointing
the contributor somewhere to clarify first
The Change
Set up the Discussion. Create the category for unplanned work, and say in it what belongs there
and how long an answer takes.
Write the process. Say how an unplanned request is evaluated, who evaluates it, and what the
outcomes are.
Point contributors to it. Update the contributing guidelines and the bot messages that answer an
assignment request or an unlinked pull request, so they name the Discussion rather than leaving a
contributor to guess.
Out of Scope
Acceptance Criteria
Follow-up
If the Discussion works, we can go stricter and auto-close every pull request with no linked issue,
with a note pointing to the Discussion. That would also let us auto-review the rest, even when the
issue is not linked correctly. #67 records this as a later decision, and it can come sooner if
unplanned pull requests become more frequent.
References
AI usage
I used Claude Code to draft this issue from #67 and its comment thread. I decided the scope and the
split from the automation work.
❌ This issue is not open for contribution. Visit Contributing guidelines to learn about the contributing process and how to find suitable issues.
Overview
Contributors open issues asking to be assigned, and pull requests with no issue behind them. We have
no single place to evaluate that work, and no stated turnaround, so each case is handled ad hoc.
Establish GitHub Discussions as the entry point for unplanned work, and the process around it.
Complexity: Medium
Target branch: main
Context
#67 covered two halves. The automation half landed in #103, which acts on the issue a community pull
request closes. This issue tracks the other half, the process, which #67 describes in
#67 (comment).
The reasons recorded there:
the contributor somewhere to clarify first
The Change
Set up the Discussion. Create the category for unplanned work, and say in it what belongs there
and how long an answer takes.
Write the process. Say how an unplanned request is evaluated, who evaluates it, and what the
outcomes are.
Point contributors to it. Update the contributing guidelines and the bot messages that answer an
assignment request or an unlinked pull request, so they name the Discussion rather than leaving a
contributor to guess.
Out of Scope
on this process proving itself.
Acceptance Criteria
Follow-up
If the Discussion works, we can go stricter and auto-close every pull request with no linked issue,
with a note pointing to the Discussion. That would also let us auto-review the rest, even when the
issue is not linked correctly. #67 records this as a later decision, and it can come sooner if
unplanned pull requests become more frequent.
References
original discussion.
AI usage
I used Claude Code to draft this issue from #67 and its comment thread. I decided the scope and the
split from the automation work.