Adding a clear process to Contributing guidelines for non technical discussions.

[simpss]

As issue #13457 and #13597 indicated, the community wants to talk about potential ethical and competitive pitfalls of the AMP project. There were some misunderstandings on where these questions are welcome and where the core contributors would respond.

I personally think this discussion should be welcome and public, while establishing a clear uncensored papertrail. Of-course moderation is warranted once comments go against the CoC, but actions should not be preemptive and there should be no filter between documentation and discussion.

Having a documented way to raise non-technical issues and listening to concerned voices is crucial for AMP to succeed as an open technology.

[dreamofabear]

Sounds reasonable, I think we can spell this out more clearly. Related: #13600 (comment)

/cc @mrjoro

[mrjoro]

Makes sense to me; I'll take a stab at this.

[ampprojectbot]

This issue hasn't been updated in awhile. @mrjoro Do you have any updates?

[ampprojectbot]

This issue hasn't been updated in awhile. @mrjoro Do you have any updates?

[mrjoro]

Once the new governance model is in place, these meta conversations will likely be something the Advisory Committee or the Technical Steering Committee would take up. They will be publishing details of how they operate; I'll add links to those here once they are ready.

[ampprojectbot]

This issue hasn't been updated in awhile. @mrjoro Do you have any updates?

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.