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

Shared responsibility model #144

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 31, 2022
Merged

Shared responsibility model #144

merged 6 commits into from
May 31, 2022

Conversation

choldgraf
Copy link
Member

We had a recent conversation with Berkeley where it was helpful to describe the "shared responsibility model" that 2i2c follows. We thought that this might be a helpful way to describe our various services and costs, so this PR takes a first pass at adding this to our docs and we can refine it from there.

@choldgraf choldgraf requested a review from yuvipanda May 27, 2022 14:18
Good since we refer to this elsewhere in our
text
Copy link
Member

@yuvipanda yuvipanda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I absolutely love the text here!!!!

I just put numbers on the list as it made it easier for me to review in the PR.

I also deeply appreciate the fact that the word 'tier' isn't present, as i think it's an antipattern we must avoid - I like the splitting out of 'simple' and 'complex' environment changes instead. https://ckrybus.com/static/papers/Bainbridge_1983_Automatica.pdf is a good read on why 'tiers' are an anti pattern.

Thanks a lot for working on this!

about/shared-responsibility.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Our challenge is to figure out which responsibiltiies should lie with the community, and which should lie with the 2i2c team, to strike this balance of impact and efficiency.

The other reason we follow this model is that it helps us follow the [Community Right to Replicate](https://2i2c.org/right-to-replicate) their infrastructure. We think of our community hubs as being a collaboration between 2i2c and the communities that use it, and this framing helps us be explicit about where we fit into the picture.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This first sentence doesn't quite make sense to me. Is it supposed to say "it helps us allow the Community Right to Replicate their infrastructure"?

@choldgraf
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the comments @yuvipanda and @sgibson91 - I've made some minor wording edits to address your comments! @yuvipanda I also added a reference to that paper and two blog posts about it, which I think is a really nice justification for these practices in general.

Copy link
Member

@yuvipanda yuvipanda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great to me, I love the direct references to one of my favorite papers too. I've made a suggested edit to address something @sgibson91 bought up, but otherwise LGTM.

about/shared-responsibility.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@yuvipanda yuvipanda merged commit 49385ae into main May 31, 2022
@yuvipanda
Copy link
Member

\o/

@damianavila damianavila deleted the responsibilities branch May 31, 2022 21:34
@damianavila
Copy link
Contributor

This is a great start, @choldgraf.
I really like the table. It sets clear expectations/responsibilities for both parties.
Thanks for writing it!!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
No open projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants