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

Re: GitHub

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 18:28:38 +0100
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <4ea60d18-54ef-8205-01e4-0d1ad26cf722@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 20/12/2016 17:45, Michael Champion wrote:

> 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.

Perfect. I'll see if I can help importing into a personal repo
and converting issues to GH issues. It is very clear I will never
commit changes without approval, even on that experimental personal
repo. I will file PRs, with rationale and comments, only. Issue 176
is already here to allow a proposal on 7.1.2 so no need for extras.

I am not saying this is supposed to be later imported by the Process
CG. This is only an experiment allowing 1. me to have a easier life
with change proposals 2. see if it fits even a bit.

Thanks again.

</Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2016 17:29:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 December 2016 17:29:11 UTC