Re: [patcg.github.io] Adding a clear incubation process and flow (#7)

I want to lead with "I think anything in a CG is ultimately merely an incubation, and I think we're splitting hairs here."

That set aside - something akin to ekr's proposal above (https://github.com/patcg/patcg.github.io/pull/7#issuecomment-1088126418) would probably be fine.  We do need to be careful that ANYTHING submitted into the group should be considered a "Specification", whether it's "accepted" by the CG as a "work item" or not; if this is not true, the CLA would likely not apply (IANAL, TINLA), and then we'd be better off again incubating work in WICG (or any other CG that would consider it a Specification).

I am perfectly fine labelling things the CG hasn't accepted in a way that makes it clear they are "Unaccepted Work Items", "non-Consensus Drafts", "Submitted Proposals", whatever.  My point is not to be able to publicly laud these as "THIS IS SOMETHING THE CG IS WORKING ON RIGHT NOW!!" for PR purposes.  But we do 1) need to get IPR locked in early (that's one of the major points of doing work in a CG), and 2) need a clear process to follow, or the answer reduces down (in terms of guidance I can give the Chrome team, e.g.) to "just throw things in your personal Github and hope the CG takes them up sometime."

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by cwilso
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/patcg/patcg.github.io/pull/7#issuecomment-1088875501 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2022 15:32:46 UTC