Re: Labels and Milestones on GitHub

> On Jan 7, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On 01/07/2016 09:27 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> 

[snip]

>> *Questions * As mentioned in a previous email, the issue list on our
>> main repo [1] is for discussing high-level issues the majority of
>> which will take the form of design questions such as those already
>> labelled as "question". Any new issues added to hte list that are
>> intended to be "question for the group to get consensus on" should
>> be labelled as "question".
> 
> Almost every issue contains a question and the vast majority of our
> important issues will require consensus from the group to merge into a spec.
> 
> I suggest that we have a "call for consensus" tag that can be used when
> a WG member wants the group to resolve a particular issue and has made a
> proposal for doing so.

I want to be sure we align the tool usage with our chartered decision policy [1].

I am wondering whether we need a label for “call for consensus”. To maximize
visibility to participants and to increase their likelihood of message persistence (an
institutional commitment from MIT), my preferences is that calls consensus be issued
by the Chairs on the group’s public mailing list. If we were to also use labels on github
(e.g., for searchability) then that would involve managing the information in two places,
and updating the labels over time (prone to error).

I do see some value to the labels (e.g., an index of all the open calls for consensus, which
some participants might appreciate and could be used to manage the agenda as you indicate),
but it raises the cost of managing the information.

Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/charter-201510.html#decisions

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447