Re: CfC to publish documents as FPWD of the Web Payments WG

My proposal is that we setup auto-publishing using the appropriate tooling
but do this off a new branch called "working-draft" or similar.

The editor's drafts will continue to be maintained on the "gh-pages" branch
so they can be easily viewed at and the chair/editors will
recommend merging "gh-pages" into "working-draft" whenever a significant
change has been made.

We'll notify the group via the list whenever a new WD is published.

On 13 April 2016 at 14:51, Shane McCarron <> wrote:

> This is the problem with the model - thanks for saying it so succinctly
> Chaals.  I think it is incumbent on the working group / editors to ensure
> there is a loud shout when there are significant changes that need review,
> as opposed to spelling and formatting fixes.  That's a process problem -
> but it feels surmountable.
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Chaals McCathie Nevile <
>> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:49:23 +0200, Manu Sporny <
>>> wrote:
>> On 04/12/2016 06:59 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>>> I am super open to adopting a working model like the following:
>>>>   * Propose changes via PR
>>>>   * Debate PRs until agreed or rejected
>>>>   * Merge PRs that are agreed
>>>>   * Automatically rev the WD via Echidna (W3C publication tool that just
>>>>     works) daily if there are merges.
>>> +1 to this working model with an emphasis on using Echidna to do
>>> auto-publication of EDs/WDs.
>> I don't mind what process the group uses to publish, so long as it is
>> reasonably lightweight and avoids the case where people have to fight over
>> a particular draft since the next chance to provide something to the world
>> will be in a year. I note that public editors' drafts are a big help with
>> that too, handled sensibly.
>> Unless there is some kind of signal like "we made a real change here,
>> please look at it", there's a problem. I'm can closely follow the issues
>> list and review pull requests regularly, where I mean "every six months".
>> Otherwise, it is not possible. Knowing the difference between the changes
>> people consider important and worthy of close review, vs those that are
>> editorial or otherwise minor, is an important guide to enabling review that
>> worth the time it took.
>> cheers
>> chaals
>> --
>> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>> - - - Find more at
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 20:16:18 UTC