Hi Ken, I appreciate the response—and I understand the reasons why Edcom needs to exercise deliberation and control over materials before they are published—or even accepted. I also know that Edcom is changing from older ways of working towards more modern formats and processes and this doesn’t happen in a day. However, under separate cover (and with a smaller audience) I just replied something similar to Asmus and I won’t reiterate too much of that here, except to say that a more open policy for issues and broader use of the PR mechanism would make it easier for “friendly” groups like W3C I18N to contribute sporadically. Best regards, Addison From: Ken Whistler <kenwhistler@sonic.net> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 4:15 PM To: Addison Phillips <addisoni18n@gmail.com>; 'Markus Scherer' <markus.icu@gmail.com> Cc: 'Editorial Committee' <edcom@unicode.org>; 'Internationalization Working Group' <public-i18n-core@w3.org> Subject: Re: Questions/comments about glossary and FAQ entries (i18n-actions#25) Addison, Not really. Email to edcom gets the attention of the maintainers of both the glossary and the FAQ pages. Both the edcom and the FAQ subgroup have internal issue tracking mechanisms they can use to track this kind of feedback, if it turns out to be something that cannot be acted on right away. But neither of those is set up for general public filing of change request tickets, for example. The glossary is not maintained in a repository. The FAQ pages are, but that repo is private to Asmus and Ben Yang, and is not fully integrated with the maintenance of the rest of the website. Updates for FAQ pages need to go through the FAQ group for discussion and implementation, and then the results eventually get deployed to the live site with some manual intervention. --Ken On 7/24/2023 3:41 PM, Addison Phillips wrote: Is there a better way for me to file bug reports/requests/etc?
Received on Monday, 24 July 2023 23:27:02 UTC