Bootstrap the Agentic Runtime research/ideation process#1
Conversation
Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
CF projects gate on a CLA signed via the EasyCLA bot (prompted on the first PR), not a Developer Certificate of Origin. Point contributors at EasyCLA and drop the git commit -s instructions so we don't ask others to sign off unnecessarily. Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
The worked example research/cf-runtime-gaps.md read as a definitive, maintainer-authored list of Cloud Foundry gaps. Identifying gaps should be an outcome of Phase 1 — synthesized at the workshop from the body of research — not a starting point that pre-empts what contributors find or crowds out their own gap analyses. Remove that note (to revisit later) and recast the Phase 1 framing to encourage outward-looking research into the wider agentic ecosystem, with only a light Cloud Foundry lens per note. Repoint the former 'complete example' links at TEMPLATE.md and refresh the schema example to an outward-looking topic. Signed-off-by: rkoster <hi@rkoster.dev>
beyhan
left a comment
beyhan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM (I have only a small comment on the pr template)
Co-authored-by: Beyhan Veli <beyhan.veli@sap.com>
|
This mirrors a lot of how I tend to think about this kind of workflow, so the structure looks like a good starting point to me. One question: should we consider separating the lifecycle stages more explicitly? For example, ideas, research, and proposals. Right now, ideas and research seem somewhat combined, which may be fine. I’m wondering whether a little separation plus cross-linking would make the repo easier to browse as it grows: browse raw ideas, follow them to related research, then see which proposals came out of that work. This may be overkill, but it was the main thought that came to mind... |
|
LGTM. Good idea to have a linter for keeping a similar structure. |
4 participants
Summary
Opens the working group's crowd-sourced research phase and puts the process itself up
for review before content arrives at volume.
This PR adds:
IDEATION.md— the ideation brief: a four-phase roadmap (research → workshop → emergentthemes → POC/RFC). Only Phase 1 (research intake) is built; later phases are described,
not scaffolded.
README.md,CONTRIBUTING.md,CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md— orientation, contributionworkflow, and conduct.
research/— a flat intake directory with the frontmatter schema (research/README.md),a copy-me
TEMPLATE.md, and one worked example note (cf-runtime-gaps.md)..github/— CODEOWNERS routing to the WG leads, a PR template, and a lightweight CIcheck that validates each note's frontmatter, filename, and required sections.
Design notes
tags into themes so the agenda emerges from what people contribute.
the merge bar. Substantive review of ideas happens at the workshop.
Feedback wanted
Please review the process (the brief and contribution flow) — this PR exists to gather
that feedback before the research window opens.