Re: Labels and Milestones on GitHub

On 8 January 2016 at 16:27, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> > 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 have proposed we use a "proposal" label for users to be able to register
a proposal that the chairs can consider in a cfc.

The intention is for this to only be used when the proposer feels like
there is a high chance of success in getting consensus.

There is nothing stopping the group requesting a question (that has not
surfaced a proposal yet) be put on the agenda for discussion on a call
(which we'll signal by putting it against the milestone for that call and
adding it to the agenda)


>
> 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
>
>
>
>