Re: Planning for post-WG life: what do we do with CSVW Github esp issue tracker?

On 8 January 2016 at 15:43, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 8 Jan 2016, at 16:37, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ivan,
>
> Are there any conventions for life-after-WG regarding Github presence,
> e.g. issue trackers or test case repositories? I am wondering what we can
> do for issue tracking in the new Community Group(*). Should it have its own
> Github repo (maybe with a fork of the final state of the WG at closure) so
> that its issues can be kept separate? That way any issues branches made
> informally within the CG could eventually give rise to pull requests (in
> 2-3 years time or whatever) should a full WG ever be reactivated. Just
> thinking out loud, and glad to hear of any useful precedents we can follow…
>
>
> There are no real conventions, so we are inventing things as we go…
>
> My initial reaction is that we should keep the github repo for the CG
> separate. There may be many discussions on the CG that end up in issues
> that are not necessarily WG specific. Also, a possible future reincarnation
> of the WG would have to pick up the WG's repo, including the errata; it may
> make their life more difficult to separate the CG specific and WG specific
> problems, issues, documents, etc.
>
> My 2 cents...
>

Makes sense to me. If there is interest in the CG in developing proposals
based on the WG materials we can use Github forks + branches. If not, we'll
just have an issue tracker. I'll look into setting that up and getting it
linked.

Dan


> Ivan
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> * http://www.w3.org/community/csvw/
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>