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

Integrate Decidim Initiatives into Decidim #3125

Merged
merged 24 commits into from
Apr 23, 2018
Merged

Integrate Decidim Initiatives into Decidim #3125

merged 24 commits into from
Apr 23, 2018

Conversation

jsperezg
Copy link
Contributor

@jsperezg jsperezg commented Apr 3, 2018

🎩 What? Why?

Integrate Decidim Initiatives into Decidim

📌 Related Issues

@mrcasals
Copy link
Contributor

mrcasals commented Apr 4, 2018

@jsperezg you need to modify the upload-coverage job in the CircleCI config file and change the parts section from 16 to 17, otherwise the build fails!

Copy link
Contributor

@josepjaume josepjaume left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry to pop in so late - I believe we should leave initiatives outside the main gem unless we have a way to toggle initiatives for an organization. Otherwise, we might be introducing a feature some people might not desire.

@xabier
Copy link

xabier commented Apr 5, 2018

Sorry to pop in so late - I believe we should leave initiatives outside the main gem unless we have a way to toggle initiatives for an organization. Otherwise, we might be introducing a feature some people might not desire.

Initiatives (also known as "Petitions" in English speaking participatory software) is the most important feature of a participatory democracy platform. Like posting a blog post in a Blog software 😄

@jsperezg
Copy link
Contributor Author

jsperezg commented Apr 5, 2018

@josepjaume @xabier What is the final decission regarding initiatives? Should it be included by default or not?

@josepjaume
Copy link
Contributor

@xabier I understand - my concern is purely technical though. I'm worried most organizations will have deployed assuming there's no such feature, and might feel frustrated if there's no way to deactivate the functionality.

Right now the easiest path is to make it optional until we figure out a mechanism to activate / deactivate features like this. This doesn't mean we don't treat initiatives (petitions?) as a first-class citizen: It's still on the repo and tests will run against it. It's just a compromise until we find a better solution.

What do you think @xabier ? @andreslucena maybe you could give your 5 cents?

@andreslucena
Copy link
Member

@josepjaume as far as I understand, your proposal (lol) would be to have it commented out on the Gemfile that we have by default (like we did until recently with Assemblies)? And on the future when we have an interface to enable/disable this kind of things?

I don't know how complicated would be to have it as an option on the general administration panel (ie "Enable Initiatives").

Related to this, I think that sooner or later we'll have a plugin manager on Decidim itself (like Discourse or Wordpress).

@xabier
Copy link

xabier commented Apr 5, 2018

@josepjaume ok. I agree. I think Decidim should ship with Initiatives but this should not override the existing instalation with a new participatory space.

Following with what @andreslucena is saying I think in the mid term Decidim should ship with a configuration panel where:

  • Spaces can be activated and de-activated
  • Plugins can be installed.

But I would differentiate plugins from the core-participatory-spaces.

@jsperezg
Copy link
Contributor Author

jsperezg commented Apr 9, 2018

@xabier So we leave it as optional until the core implements the plugin control system?

@mrcasals
Copy link
Contributor

@jsperezg yes, please 😄 We talked about it offline yesterday and that's what we agreed on.

@andreslucena
Copy link
Member

@jsperezg yes, the consensus was with having it commented on the Gemfile of the generated application (like we used to do with assemblies)

@jsperezg
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mrcasals @andreslucena @josepjaume Can you check my last changes?

@mrcasals mrcasals mentioned this pull request Apr 17, 2018
4 tasks
@ghost ghost assigned josepjaume Apr 18, 2018
@josepjaume
Copy link
Contributor

@jsperezg nicely done! Turning the controller test into a system one is the only way I could find in the past to solve the very same issue.

josepjaume
josepjaume previously approved these changes Apr 18, 2018
oriolgual
oriolgual previously approved these changes Apr 18, 2018
@oriolgual oriolgual added this to the Release v.0.11.0 milestone Apr 23, 2018
@ghost ghost assigned mrcasals Apr 23, 2018
@mrcasals mrcasals merged commit cda014e into master Apr 23, 2018
@ghost ghost removed the status: WIP label Apr 23, 2018
@mrcasals mrcasals deleted the issue_3118 branch April 23, 2018 13:50
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants