Determine the route after the participating route
Issues and Collaborations are important as entry points, but leaving them as they are leaves too many questions as to what to do next. Here, we will divide it into 5 paths based on What we want to do now and pin the next page.
Five paths to follow after participation/collaboration page
| What I want to do next | Next page | What to decide there |
|---|---|---|
| I want to make small corrections now | Issue / Content Hub | Fix which paragraphs and terms on which pages will be corrected and where they will be integrated. |
| I want to figure out what needs to be met to move forward | Verification / Roadmap | Distinguish the passing conditions, disproving conditions, and what level of assertion. |
| I want to turn literature into work that can be done now | A straight path back from literature to implementation and participation / Research Harvest | Decide where to return the document to: Open Problems, Proposals, Issues, or Collaboration Preparations. |
| I want to break down external dependencies into preparations | In-house production and external dependencies / Collaborations | We will distinguish between things that can be produced in-house and things that require a partner or system. |
| I want to descend to the minimum loop of L0 implementation | Hands-on / L0 minimum artifact pack | Fix the minimum deliverables of what should remain as a set of reproducible analyses. |
Why this division
| way | Reasons for going to the page after joining page |
|---|---|
| Small fixes | The initial value of participation lies in identifying and correcting specific points to be corrected, rather than in a big plan. |
| Condition design | In order to reduce ambiguous issues, it is necessary to first determine on the Verification side what needs to be met to move forward. |
| Working from literature | Thesis notes tend to get scattered, and it is easier to move forward by deciding which public page to return to. |
| Decomposing external dependencies | Even if the work looks like it is waiting for a partner, specifications, comparison tables, minimum deliverables, etc. can be produced in-house first. |
| L0 implementation preparation | Part of participating is not just about writing, but also about creating the smallest loop of reproducible artifacts. |
Assistance wiki when you stop midway
| Place to stop | Go back to wiki |
|---|---|
| Stops at the boundary between external dependencies and executable changes | In-house production and external dependencies |
| Stop thinking about what to write in the issue | How to write your first issue |
| Stops depending on where you want to return the paper | A straight path back from literature to implementation and participation |
| Stops at public page and wiki locations | Basics of deciding where to place new information / Content Hub |
| Stop at L0 minimum deliverables | L0 minimum artifact pack |
| Stop depending on what level of argument you are talking about | How to read each L0 to L5 |
Common ways to get lost
Mistake
- Just opening the issue makes you feel like you have decided what to do next: In reality, you need to focus on things like modification, condition design, and decomposition of external dependencies.
- Start with the big collaboration: It will be easier to proceed if you create a one-page summary or minimum deliverables in-house first.
- Read the article and think you've already joined: You need to decide which public page or issue to return to.
- Treating text corrections and assertion-level corrections with the same weight: It is safer to distinguish between terminology corrections and passing condition corrections first.
Where to return next
Please use Contribution Guide to return to the entry point for participation, Collaboration candidates to return to external collaboration candidates, and Public content integration hub to return to organizing publishing destinations.