Criteria for Birmingham.IO projects

To my mind, Birmingham.IO exists for the community.

It exists so that likeminded people can communicate and work on things together. It exists to make life easier for the people in the community. (It exists because I was surprised that it didn’t already exist, and I figured it should).

In the past few weeks I’ve had various people approach me regarding ideas they’d like to work on as part of Birmingham.IO. This includes things like Planet Birmingham, the Pair Programming idea, and a few others (the details of which I’ll let the respective people reveal themselves once they’re ready to do so).

And you know what? I love that people want to do this. I makes me feel the whole Birmingham.IO thing is doing something good, and I’m all for that.

But it also got me thinking.

I’m happy to lend the Birmingham.IO name to these projects, letting them run under a subdomain, etc…, but there has to be an understanding as to exactly what it means to be a Birmingham.IO project. Its with this in mind that I write this post, as I would like some help from the community to work out exactly what this is.

From my own perspective, I think there are a few key points:

  1. it has to be aimed at the community.
  2. It has to be open source.
  3. It has to be community driven.
  4. It has to work on the concept of people getting credit where credit is due.
  5. It should exist as a Git repo under the BirminghamIO GitHub team account.

The first should be self explanatory (I mean, why would you even want it to be part of the community, if it isn’t aimed at the community?) I think the second, third and fourth are the most important ones for me, as these let everyone that want to get involved, the ability to do so. IMO the third and fourth fit nicely into the fifth one, as pull requests and/or GitHub teams allow the community to take part, and each commit makes it easy to see who has done what. Further to this, the fifth one helps keep everything in one place.


  • What do you think of these criteria?
  • Do you disagree with any of them?
  • Are there any that I’m missing?

Please let me know.

Update 1

I think these are reasonable.

I think sites need to be the authoritative place for what they do - e.g. the most active discussion forum, the most comprehensive list of blogs.

I’ve started a new topic for ideas.

I’ve just thought of one more criteria:

  • It needs to conform to the style guide (at least loosely).

The fact said style guide doesn’t exist yet makes this one difficult to implement right now :wink: but I still think it’s worthy.

1 Like

In my experience, design guidance is always written after the code so I’d say you must be following best practice :slight_smile:

1 Like

Proudly sponsored by Bytemark