Skip to content

2023-03-29 Team meeting

Projects & responsibilities check-in

  • Summary: I’d like to check in with everyone on the status of planned projects and ongoing responsibilities
  • Participants: everyone


  • Ghislaine: for user feedback, I was planning to check in every couple weeks to see what action items we have. Wondering how to turn user feedback into action items.
    • Kriti: Makes sense to do it ad-hoc for now but gradually move towards more of a process.
    • Ghislaine: It’s more interesting once we can see patterns, so we’ll keep collecting user feedback for now and look for action items once we can see patterns.
    • Kriti: It would be good to document your processes on the wiki page. Ghislaine.
  • Ongoing responsiblitity and project pages are both very close to being completed and approved. Project page has some feedback to address. Will work on that today.
  • Project is for establishing the “process”. Ongoing responsibility is for doing the process. Project should be done pretty soon.


  • I have marketing. Wrote up notes on process. Didn’t get any feedback, so assuming it’s approved. Ties into user feeback.
    • Sean: I looked over it. Looked good.
  • Funding: still working to document the funding project. Hoping to have that completed this week.
  • Approved some projects and responsibilities. Waiting to hear back from other people.


  • GSoC is now an ongoing responsibility. This is taking up a lot of time/energy
  • I have some items in backlog that are delayed due to GSoC. Ping me with questions/concerns
  • GSoC ongoing responsibility documentation is done. More updates will be made as-needed
  • Backup and restore project documentation has not begun yet. This is taking a back seat to GSoC at the moment.
  • Kriti: if GSoc is still taking up lots ot time, check in with us later.


  • Most of my time has been reviewing PRs
  • release management
    • Scope of release management seems larger that what I expected
    • “Choosing the issues for the release” is still a “fuzzy” responsibility that I’m trying to figure out.
    • Would like to choose a theme for each release and build the tickets around that theme.
    • Still working to figure out the process
    • Once the process is more figured out, then I’ll document it. Going to be a while before I’m fully set up with the process.
  • Installation improvements:
    • More work on this will come after “Release Management” settles down
  • Front end performance
    • This is on hold at the moment due to other things
  • Comments
    • Kriti: might make sense to document what you already have while it’s fresh in your mind. Fine to document what you already have.


  • Repo admin
    • PR is open for responsibilities documentation. This is reviewed. Need to merge.
    • Work is going okay so far.
    • Sometimes contributors have specific questions and I’m not sure who to direct those questions to
      • Kriti: you can ask me if you need.
  • Localization
    • started working on documentation. Will have draft to propose by the end of this week.


  • Usability improvements project
    • Documented and approved by Kriti
    • It’s well specified and Sean’s starting work on that
  • Team management ongoing responsibility
    • Not put work into it yet, waiting till everyone settles down with the projects & responsibilities
    • There’s no plan to document this
      • Kriti: It’s fine not to document this


  • Installation assisting (ongoing)
    • This is Brent’s responsibility, but Mukesh is helping while Brent is on leave
    • Had a call with Dan and Dan’s friend. Planning to check in with them weekly. Tried out Mathesar locally.
    • Mukesh: I’ll be documenting this after doing some more work on installation improvements
    • Kriti: I think Brent should document this once he’s back – Mukesh: ok
    • Kriti: We have three requests for installations
  • Installation Improvements (project)
    • Would like to come up with proposals for what needs to be done
    • Kriti: This should be highest priority. We should try to split this into multiple projects
    • Mukesh: I’d like to split it up, but I’ll need to figure out what needs do be done first
    • Would like to have some project documentation completed by the end of this week.
    • Pavish: I see a high priority for improving installation-related documentation. I suggest prioritizing this. Who is working on this?
      • Marius has done some work on this
      • Mukesh will be pulling in other people as needed
      • Pavish & Kriti: since users are actively requesting documentation improvements, we should be actively working on this in parallel with the broader planning-related tasks
  • Remove SQLAlchemy
    • Working on researching a replacement query builder
    • Kriti: I would recommend deprioritizing this in favor of others
  • The last week has mostly been GSoC and PR-review work


High level questions

  • Ghislaine: If I want to create a new project, how do I do that?
    • Kriti: We don’t have a process yet for how to do this. Until we do, talk to me.
  • Pavish: When people work on the same issue, I still don’t know how we should handle this.
  • Tabled for async discussion

Where to put what kind of docs

  • Participants: Sean, Kriti
  • Summary:

    Since we are working on cleaning up and fleshing out our documentation, I want to seek some clarity on the scope of our different docs sources, attempting to eliminate ambiguity and disagreement.

    Currently we put documentation in the following places

    docs site markdown near code wiki HackMD
    Administrator docs X
    Developer docs X X X
    Code docs X
    Team docs X X

    Kriti said

    Rather than spreading documentation across the wiki / docs / repo READMEs, I think we should standardize on the docs site.

    I’d prefer to use the docs site only for administrator docs (e.g. install/upgrade) and user docs (which we don’t have yet). I’d prefer to put developer docs in markdown near code. Why?

    • Sometimes we have highly specific markdown files like this one that would feel awkward in the docs site. Putting this documentation content as close as possible to the code that it documents is a great way to keep it up-to-date and discoverable. If we keep that file in its place and also choose to move some of the README content into the docs site then it seems a little hard to draw a clear/consistent line between the two. What about this README, for example? It’s much higher-level, but still not top-level.

    • The docs site is published from the master branch, and that’s important because we want to ensure that it reflects the latest released version of Mathesar so that docs readers who are installing or using Mathesar don’t see content before it’s actually applicable. But what’s “applicable” to developers is not the latest released version – it’s the development version. Here’s a PR that made a some docs improvement for developers. We merged it last week but it’s still not published because the author targetted develop (by default) and I failed to notice/think that perhaps it should have targetted master instead. EDIT: I just found another such PR after investigating a complaint about incorrect documentation.

    To be clear: I very much support the initiative to move dev docs out of the wiki. I would just rather put them in plain markdown files within the codebase instead of putting them into the docs site.

    Putting content into the docs site certainly has its benefits. I have more thoughts about some of the nuance and gray area, and I think it might be best to chat about it so that we can agree on some guidelines as we flesh out our docs.


  • Sean and Kriti discussed this
  • Kriti’s points:

    • Discoverability is very important. We need to make sure that if docs content is outside of mkdocs that readers can still discover it somehow.
    • Django docs is a good example of versioned docs that has a dev version too
    • NocoDB has docs with dev docs published. They don’t appear to have them versioned
    • Our main readme shouldn’t be too bloated. It should link to other things
    • Material foor MkDocs appears to have a way to set up versioning
  • Sean’s points

    • I’d rather not set up versioned docs right now. I’ll do some research into that versioning system to see how easy it might be to implement

    • Kriti is open to Sean’s proposal to put docs content in unpublished markdown files, but would like to see a more detailed plan that specifies where content would go and how it would be discoverable
    • Sean will open a PR to the wiki documenting/proposing more specific guidelines for where we would put stuff