Terms of reference#38
Conversation
|
|
||
| **Isabelle Maréchaux**, INRAE — AMAP, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, 34000 Montpellier, France | ||
| Ecologist, forest modelling, plant physiology. | ||
| Role: project lead, lead of version 4.0 upgrade (including water module) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those roles can evolve in subsequent versions of the ToR as our actual implications, ways of working together and new students/collaboration evolve.
| @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ | |||
| # TROLL individual based model - Terms of Reference | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi I appreciate the flexibility but am wondering if for this type of document we need to have a flexible format. A ToR sets the "rules of the game" and if anyone can change the rules any moment, this kind of defeats the purpose. Just a thought.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi Jérôme, very good point. However, I think a flexible tool doesn't mean unstable ToR. As with CRAN submissions we can control the number of updates, and we can refuse the external submission of changes until we have the need to (because apart from us nobody can make direct changes). Anyway, I'm not very attached about the ToR to be as an md on the GitHub repo. For me the advantage was for a "dev" that would only find the repo to know the ToR. But if a website with the ToR exists I imagine he would read it too. So as everybody prefers.
3 participants
Hi @jeromechave, @IsabelleMarechaux and @fischer-fjd ,
To demonstrate how to use our own fork of the repository to draft contributions on our account before submitting them as a pull request for review, I converted Jérome's Google Docs 'Terms of Reference' document into an MD file. This can be directly associated with the repository and automatically rendered in GitHub thanks to Markdown. Philippe can then use it as raw material for the website. I suggest you use this pull request to familiarise yourself with the review system on GitHub before we merge it (or reject it if you disagree).
Best