Have a clear product/technical roadmap for OpenFisca Core

[bonjourmauko]

cc @Morendil @sandcha

[bonjourmauko]

I've tried to distill what could be a short-mid term roadmap for OpenFisca-Core here:

• https://github.com/openfisca/openfisca-core/milestone/2
• https://github.com/openfisca/openfisca-core/milestone/3
• https://github.com/openfisca/openfisca-core/milestone/4
• https://github.com/openfisca/openfisca-core/milestone/5
• https://github.com/openfisca/openfisca-core/milestone/6

@MattiSG I see that you've been successfully running RFCs lately, I would love to have your help/opinion on this one, most of it are elements we've been discussing for a while now.

[MattiSG]

Thank you for that contribution @maukoquiroga. It certainly improves the readability of the existing PRs! 😀

I believe that roadmap are promises to be upheld by those who publish them, and I unfortunately do not command enough resources a the moment to commit to such a roadmap 🙁 I am thus not sure what to do with those milestones.

[bonjourmauko]

@MattiSG At least for #1061 , #1062 , and #1063 , if there's no preliminary waver needed from the community, I just had in mind to ask for contributions —but not before I'm sure those contributions will have a reasonably % of merging (to avoid #976 for example).

For the rest, I agree, this was more intented to let people know how to contribute than to agree on delivery.

[MattiSG]

Thank you for these clarifications 👍

As explained in #1054 (review), I believe these do not need preliminary community agreement. Agreement would be in my view necessary in order to make accepting contributions dependent on the respect of documentation / typing standards.

#976 is a good example: why has it been blocked? Do you confirm that #1054 and following are re-implementations of the same concern?

[bonjourmauko]

@MattiSG Exactly, that could have been accepted ...

[MattiSG]

So why wasn't it? 🤔

[bonjourmauko]

Because you forgot to click the accept button 🤣

Joking, closing this issue as is not actionable.