- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 09:34:42 -0700
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Antoine - the lack of an ability to comment on parts of an issue is definitely a problem with github issues. I could re-create the document as a Google doc or a Hackmd.io doc, where comments are possible. Yes, this is just an effort to clean things up before moving the issues to a new repo for Profiles Guidance. I'm not sure what you mean by > 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. If you mean that issues in the general DXWG repo could be used by the PG group, then I don't think there's anything so formal that ties issues to outputs so that shouldn't be a problem. kc On 6/15/21 11:52 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: > 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. > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/profiles/ > > 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: >> >> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1366 >> >> 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. > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2021 16:36:46 UTC