- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 15:45:05 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK-qy=6aCKuhuJuRpzeoMzfdhsoUOkQFJxhrORrznpB88a7szQ@mail.gmail.com>
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 > > > > >
Received on Friday, 8 January 2016 15:45:33 UTC