Re: [webvtt] Spec editing

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:42:40 +0200, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>  
wrote:

> On 23/09/2015 11:05, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:37:26 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why would there be a need to have two editors' drafts?
>>>
>>> There wouldn't.
>>
>> OK good. :-)
>>
>>> I am not sure how to handle the flow between the WHATWG github repo,
>>> the current github repo, the W3C CVS and the Echidna publishing
>>> pipeline.
>>
>> I've went ahead and moved the repo to the whatwg organization, so there
>> will not be two github repos.
>
> For me the working model is now extremely confusing between TTCG, WHATWG
> and TTWG. 2 places for this work was bad enough. 3 is definitely a crowd.
> If you want this repo on github, fine, but what's wrong with the W3C  
> repo,
> since the Text Tracks CG is a W3C group?

As David said, the CG and the WHATWG is basically the same and has always  
been for WebVTT. WHATWG is also a W3C CG. Having the repo in the whatwg  
github organization just seemed like a more natural place if we host the  
editors' draft at webvtt.spec.whatwg.org.

>> OK. Then I suggest we ask the relevant TTWG members to create a GitHub
>> account to contribute new issues. As far as new contributors go, my
>> assumption is that most have a GitHub account but very few have a W3C
>> bugzilla account.
>
> The TTWG needs to track issues on the Rec track snapshots of the  
> document.
> Though those issues may helpfully be duplicated in github for the Editors
> and other collaborators, the option in the TTWG tracker for raising  
> issues
> there remains available.
>
> As I understand it the desire for a 'living specification' is to allow  
> for
> shorter iterations between publications so that the spec can be more
> responsive. Whereas to get to Rec the steps needed are unavoidably slower
> but result in a stable version that can be referenced. Therefore the
> Editors must maintain two separate and possibly divergent versions of the
> spec, with different issues, one the 'living' one and the other the Rec
> track one. TTWG is primarily interested in the Rec track one so we need a
> process for bringing through changes from the living doc. Having a
> separate issue tracker may actually be a useful tool for keeping the  
> issue
> sets separate.

OK. Do I understand correctly that you do not want to stop using W3C  
bugzilla, at least for the Rec-track document?

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 11:17:01 UTC