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

Re: Moving the process to github…

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 13:45:22 -0500
To: chaals@yandex-team.ru, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1b724a2a-6a04-1e73-6c6e-447a301821f3@w3.org>
[adding Ted]


On 12/27/2016 1:58 AM, chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> Hi,
>
> people have requested that the process document be on github. I would like us to make that change, but there are a couple of questions I think we need to consider.
>
> Rationales given in favour of the change are:
> 1. This will enable easier tracking of issues.
> 2. It is easier to contribute changes this way.
> 3. This will provide consistency of tooling.
> 4. This will enable diff tracking.
>
> I think 4 is false, since the kind of diff that github produces is also available from the current mercurial repositry, and second because in many cases it isn't very helpful for understanding changes anyway, hence the additional changelog which is part of the document.
>
> I retain an open mind on the others, and will wait to see what happens in reality.
>
> There are a couple of questions that I think need to be answered first:
>
> 1. What about where github is blocked?
> This has been reported as being the case for various W3C member organisations, based on policy at various different levels. Has W3C done any systematic investigation to determine the scope of the problem, and how affected stakeholders can continue to participate?

We have not done any systematic investigation.

Indeed, as you point out, there are some Member organizations for whom 
github is blocked.  But we have not heard this complaint from a large 
number of Members.

Github being blocked has not inhibited many Working Groups from using 
it.  Since these groups typically have broader participation that W3C 
Process - I doubt that this should be the primary reason for W3C Process 
not to use github.

The best systematic way to find out whether people in the W3C Process CG 
are inhibited would be to do a survey of the W3C Process CG - since that 
is (presumably) the set that is most interested.  We can do that, but I 
doubt we would get much response.  We could also survey the AC.  I doubt 
that would get much response either.

We likewise do not have a comprehensive set of tools to allow 
stakeholders to participate if their company blocks them from using 
github.  In some cases, their companies might permit them to use their 
personal accounts - either to read the github threads, or even to 
participate.  If not, we always have the option to proxy a draft to a 
w3.org URI.

>
> 2. Producing coherent drafts?
> While the document has been in Mercurial, I have attempted as editor to provide periodic updates that are a coherent draft, including a relevant status section, a written change log describing the substantive alterations in drafts, and more recently a diff-marked HTML document to highlight changes between the current editor's version and the currently operative process. How much of this is worth continuing to do, and how do we make it happen, given the workflows of github?
>
> When the group has resolved these questions, I hope the W3C staff will provide a Github repository under the W3C account,to be the primary editor's draft.

I'm sure we can do that.

>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> -- 
> Charles McCathie Nevile - standards - Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2016 18:45:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 27 December 2016 18:45:30 UTC