W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2016

Re: GitHub (was: Requested addition to section 7.1)

From: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:45:51 +0000
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1360EB16-9A69-4053-96A2-BDA4F677484F@microsoft.com>
The AB has delegated drafting updates to the process document to the Process CG, so it’s up to this group to decide how to draft them.  GitHub seems like a reasonable place, the initial question is more about who would do the work to convert the current document (and ideally the currently open issues).  I believe Chaals intends to do this eventually, but he may have other holiday plans :-). 


Personally (not speaking for the AB by any means) I’d suggest:
- If people in the CG have a lot of passion for moving the document to GitHub sooner rather than later, convert it into a persona repo as an experiment and see how it works. If the successful, the CG can decide to import it into W3C’s GitHub space and adopt it as the official draft.  Obviously there’s a risk of doing a bunch of work that the CG ends up not accepting, so maybe you should wait to get CG approval in advance, but that certainly won’t happen until the new year. But up to you whether to seek approval in advance or do a private experiment and see if it gets traction.
- To be a good experiment, define the success criteria up front and a timeframe you think you can achieve those criteria. For example, you might hypothesize that moving to markdown format would make it easier for people to suggest changes so issues get resolved faster, using a tool that everyone understands will increase participation in the CG, and that there will be a manageable number of solid pull requests.  It might also be good to identify “red flags” to look out for, e.g. getting too many issues without actual proposals, or getting too many pull requests without discussion of what issue they solve.  
- If the success criteria are met in the expected timeframe AND no unanticipated problems arise (e.g, making it easy to for anyone to participate allows trolls to dominate) then declare the experiment a success and make the GitHub version authoritative.



-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 1:53 AM
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Subject: GitHub (was: Requested addition to section 7.1)
Resent-From: <public-w3process@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 1:54 AM

    On 19/12/2016 15:36, Daniel Glazman wrote:
    
    > I am going to stop here this thread that goes into circles until I post
    > my process change proposals.
    
    I am now editing into a clone of the hg repo but that would help
    A LOT to have a github mirror of the Process since I could file
    issues and PRs. The hg repo and its logs are public anyway.
    
    1. could it be done _now_ by AB as an experiment, please?
    
    2. does AB have any recommendation or guideline about such an
       experiment I should follow?
    
    Thanks.
    
    </Daniel>
    
    
    

Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2016 16:46:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 December 2016 16:46:30 UTC