Re: [pg] Review of profile guidance issues

Hi Karen, all

I am ashamed that I couldn't reply earlier, and will probably struggle to find time to work on the document...

In any case I think Karen's list is a great start and it provides a process and categories that I think we can follow. Thanks!

This said I am not sure how to discuss the groupings themselves. I start to post comments in the new ticket #1366 with remarks like "I agree that #989 shouldn't be worked on, but that's because I believe it can be closed, not because I think it's out of scope" this is going to be hard to follow, isn't it?

By the way this comment begs for a methodology check: we're only looking at moving open issues in the DXWG repo, aren't we?
I mean, there are closed issues that probably played a big role for defining the current draft [1] and the google docs around it. If we lose track of them we may re-invent the wheel, or trash bits of text that were once judged important following a discussion.
I don't want to move closed tickets to a new github space, but at least the WG should be ready to accept that a ticket from a non-PG repo could be still used as rationale for the PG effort.




On 19/05/2021 22:43, Karen Coyle wrote:
> All,
> I took an action to find out if those of us potentially working on the profile guidance document would like our own github repo at this point. This would mean copying over the issues from the main repo to a PG repo. I'm assuming that having a separate repo would be a good idea, but I also think that it makes sense to review the issues and remove any that we don't want to move over. Therefore, I have created a first issue about issues:
> These have my initial assessments, and it is all open to discussion.
> If this works as a way to winnow down the issues before moving them, I will do the remainder. This is only about 1/3 of the 90 issues that are marked at PG, but we can remove others after they are moved to a new repo. My idea here is to get rid of the ones that are obviously not in scope. It's a step we would have to take anyway.
> Please give your assessments of these issues.

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2021 18:53:39 UTC