Re: Proposing a way for handling actions in the group (and sorry for some possible noise...)

+1

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 15:02, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:

> Looks great, Ivan ship it!
>
> Gregg Kellogg
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 3:34 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> this was discussed in one of the previous calls: there is a need to manage
> actions in the Working Group. I have therefore spent some times to see what
> can be done about it. After having discussed it with Benjamin and Gregg
> (thanks for the feedbacks!) I modified the scribe generation script to do
> the following:
>
> - Actions are to be added on IRC as now.
> - The minute generator (ie, scribejs) picks up those actions and raises an
> issue for each of those in a repo that is part of the configuration. (In
> the case of the JSON-LD WG I propose to use 'json-ld-wg'). The issue:
> - includes a unique ID as part of the title (which helps avoiding that the
> same action is raised twice in case the minutes are re-generated for
> whatever purpose)
> - the issue is assigned to the person in github (in case I have that
> person's github id in my files…)
> - the issue text itself has a link to the relevant portion of the minutes.
> - the issue is labeled 'action'
> - Examples of a specific test repo can be seen in, e.g.,[1]. Note that the
> action assigned to, e.g., Rob[2] is not assigned to him, because he does
> not have a read permission in github for that repo.
> - From that point on, actions can be handled as issues: when an action is
> completed, the relevant issue can be closed.
>
> Now comes the more disagreeable side: I have done my best to test the new
> system on the test repo[1], but comes a time when this has to go live. That
> means you will get mails in your mailbox on new actions being raised for
> you. The problem is that, of course, there will be bugs, which means that I
> may have to repeat the round. This means you may receive some unnecessary
> noise. Sorry for that…
>
> Before I do this, however, I would appreciate if you looked at [1] and [2]
> and tell me whether you feel this is something worth finishing, whether you
> have any comments, etc.
>
> B.t.w., my plan is to run the script against the minutes starting 1st of
> January, ie, reconstructing things for this year.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thx
>
> Ivan
>
> [1] https://github.com/iherman/oct_test/issues
> [2] https://github.com/iherman/oct_test/issues/16
>
>
>
> P.S. Scribes, the rule to follow is to really spell it out an action as
> defined; I have hit an action in one of the minutes of the form 'gregg and
> pchampin to XYZ', which is a source of problems because the system takes
> anything before 'to' as the irc nickname of the assignee...
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>