# Review requested: On review culture

**URL:** <https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/review-requested-on-review-culture/577>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [January 11, 2020, 8:29am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/review-requested-on-review-culture/577 "2020-01-11T08:29:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![decentralion](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/decentralion/32/7_2.png) [@decentralion](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/decentralion)\
**Post date:** [January 11, 2020, 8:29am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/review-requested-on-review-culture/577/1 "2020-01-11T08:29:45Z")

</div>

Lately we’ve been discussing how cultivating [review culture](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/spontanious-community-call/543) across SourceCred will help us stay aligned as we grow our community. In particular, I think we should start producing shared “docs artifacts” that we’ve reviewed and we stand behind as a community. By “docs artifacts” I mean both things like user guides, and also community touchstones.

So, to kick things off, I wrote [this guide](https://github.com/sourcecred/docs/blob/review-culture/culture/review_culture.md) on review culture, which I hope will be one of the first docs artifacts. Please [review the pull request](https://github.com/sourcecred/docs/pull/1) and let me know what you think. 🙂

If you aren’t quite sure how to review a pull request on GitHub, please ask questions in the Discord and I or others will be happy to help!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![burrrata](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/burrrata/32/135_2.png) [@burrrata](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/burrrata)\
**Post date:** [January 11, 2020, 7:09pm UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/review-requested-on-review-culture/577/2 "2020-01-11T19:09:23Z")

</div>

Read through the guide. Looks good, but it seems especially applicable to code review. Is it meant as a guide for developers, or for all SourceCred community members across all domains of contribution? If the later, I’d suggest exploring changes to the language.

Also, the guide is submitted to a [GitHub Docs repo](https://github.com/sourcecred/docs). Is the idea to aggregate docs for developers on GitHub, or to aggregate all SourceCred docs in that repo?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![decentralion](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex032/user_avatar/discourse.sourcecred.io/decentralion/32/7_2.png) [@decentralion](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/u/decentralion)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2020, 1:36am UTC](https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/review-requested-on-review-culture/577/3 "2020-01-12T01:36:12Z")

</div>

> [@burrrata](#):
>
> Is it meant as a guide for developers, or for all SourceCred community members across all domains of contribution?

This is meant to be a guide for everyone in the SourceCred community.

> [@burrrata](#):
>
> it seems especially applicable to code review … I’d suggest exploring changes to the language

Please share the improvements you have in mind on the review. 🙂 I know reviewing from the perspective of code review in particular, so it makes sense if my draft is oriented that way.

> [@burrrata](#):
>
> Also, the guide is submitted to a [GitHub Docs repo](https://github.com/sourcecred/docs). Is the idea to aggregate docs for developers on GitHub, or to aggregate all SourceCred docs in that repo?

I’d like to aggregate all the SourceCred docs in that repo. For accessibility, we’ll also mirror the merged docs into an official category on the Discourse.