[ladc]

Update guidelines based on the open source governance discussion held at the Open Nowcasting Hackathon in Belgium.
This addresses issue #599.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.99%. Comparing base (f1a3af1) to head (cd51e7c).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #598   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.99%   84.99%           
=======================================
  Files         172      172           
  Lines       15445    15445           
=======================================
  Hits        13128    13128           
  Misses       2317     2317           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit_tests	84.99% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ladc]

Note that the parts concerning uv and ruff are addressed in #592.

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

Two active documentation issues remain: the testing statement does not match the workflow triggers, and a missing blank line may cause incorrect reStructuredText rendering.

2 open issues

• Align feature-branch testing claims with workflow triggers · New
• Separate the restoration paragraph from the list · New

What changed in this PR

Updates contributor governance guidelines based on the Open Nowcasting Hackathon discussion and adds automated handling for inactive issues and pull requests.

Changes:

• Revises contribution, branching, issue, pull request, and AI-assisted development guidance.
• Adds owner and maintainer responsibilities, inactivity rules, and restoration policies.
• Adds a scheduled actions/stale@v11 workflow for stale issues and pull requests.

File	Summary	Review comments
CONTRIBUTING.rst	Updates contribution procedures, governance rules, AI-use guidance, maintainer expectations, and project credits.	Nit (4 votes): Clarify that feature-branch commits are tested only through eligible pull requests or broaden the workflow trigger. Nits (2, 1, and 1 vote): Add a blank line after the nested list, document the additional 21-day close period after items become stale, and change “contributors guides” to “contributor guides” or “contributors' guides.”
.github/​workflows/​stale.yml	Adds scheduled stale issue and pull-request management.	Moderate (1 vote): Add repo-token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} to the with block so actions/stale can process issues and pull requests.

_{Review effort: Lite}

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

An active critical workflow configuration issue prevents the documented stale-and-close policy from running, and a minor documentation wording issue also remains.

1 open issue

• Stale action never marks issues or pull requests stale · New

1 previously missed issue

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Correct “Contributors guides” terminology

CONTRIBUTING.rst:447

“Contributors guides” is grammatically incorrect here; the established term is “contributor guides” (or “contributors’ guides”).

2 resolved since last review

• Separate the restoration paragraph from the list
• Align feature-branch testing claims with workflow triggers

_{Review effort: Lite}

[Copilot]

🔵 Needs a closer look

The workflow lacks actions: write, which can prevent actions/stale@v11 from updating its saved checkpoint and cause later runs to reuse outdated progress through the backlog.

No open issues 🎉

1 previously missed issue

In code that hasn't changed since last review

Grant Actions write permission for checkpoint updates

.github/​workflows/​stale.yml:18

Add actions: write to this permissions block so actions/stale@v11 can replace its saved processing checkpoint through the Actions cache API. Without it, checkpoint updates can fail, causing later runs to reuse outdated progress instead of reliably advancing through the backlog when the operation limit is reached.

1 resolved since last review

• Stale action never marks issues or pull requests stale

_{Review effort: Balanced}

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

The workflow grants a third-party action unnecessary actions: write permission, expanding the token’s potential impact beyond the required issue and pull-request permissions.

1 open issue

• Remove unnecessary actions: write permission · New

_{Review effort: Lite}

[ritvje]

Should there be a mention of what the responsibilities of the owners are? (compared to maintainers)