RE: `: Process for working on the CEPC

Hi Nigel,

I would also encourage you to review the minutes of the meetings at which PRs are discussed. I agree that I should do a better job of documenting that we agreed on merging PRs at meetings.

See for example the minutes from the 13 June meeting: https://www.w3.org/2019/06/13-pwe-minutes.html


Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 5:07 AM
To: wX(ӰX) <angelli.laq@alibaba-inc.com>; public-pwe@w3.org
Subject: Re: `: Process for working on the CEPC

Hi Angel,

Going through all the pull requests is going to take me too long. Here are a couple of recent ones where things could have been done better:

  *   changes to "made a mistake" section #52<https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/52> No issue, opened 5th June, merged 13th June, no pull request reviews, one positive comment which itself had one thumbs up.
  *   added be inclusive/removed nevers #49<https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/49> No issue, opened 6th May, merged 3rd July, one request changes review, after merge a comment was added that a previous comment had not been addressed. This was likely avoidable by better communication about what was happening, specifically, committing the fixes to the source branch, resolving the comments and then merging.

The first one was merged after 8 days, which is fairly speedy, and makes me wonder what the appropriate review period should be for this group, since it is unstated at the moment.

The second demonstrates that communicating clearly about changes being made in response to comments would help avoid tensions.

Both had no issue, and seemed to come out of the blue, I e. without any motivation. If there were discussions about them, then a pointer to those would have been welcome. If there are informal out-of-meeting discussions, thats fine of course, but I would request that they are summarised in some form probably in an issue so that theres a formal record of who talked about what and what they concluded, and so that other participants can voice any relevant opinions in favour or against.

Nigel


From: "wX(ӰX)" <angelli.laq@alibaba-inc.com<mailto:angelli.laq@alibaba-inc.com>>
Date: Monday, 8 July 2019 at 09:31
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk<mailto:nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>>, "public-pwe@w3.org<mailto:public-pwe@w3.org>" <public-pwe@w3.org<mailto:public-pwe@w3.org>>
Subject: `: Process for working on the CEPC

Hi Nigel,

Thanks for raising all these good questions!
I believe clear answers to them are quite important to our work on the CEPC.
Please find below my attempt efforts to answer. And corrects and comments are welcome from the community.

Hi all,

Do we have any process set out for how we work together on the CEPC?

The approach up until now hasnt matched anything Ive used before and I find it somewhat unsettling and hard to follow, which in turn makes me nervous that we are not doing the best work that we can, together. Specifically:

  *   Pull requests are opened to make changes that do not seem to have been discussed and do not have related issues
** Could you please list the pull requests that you think should have been discussed but not? Maybe we could review them on the group phone call.

  *   Discussions on the pull requests are wide ranging in scope and hard to keep track of, very likely because they do not relate to discussed issues
  *   Pull requests are merged while there are still ongoing conversations, and Im not sure when we have reached consensus or what the accepted review period is
** seems similar to issue 1 above. Lets put the Pull request discussion into our July phone call agenda.

  *   I havent managed to work out what the publication plan is and if there are any particular timescales were aiming to meet, target versions etc
** I remember the plan is to release the formal version of CEPC before TPAC. To achieve that, we should probably make a more detailed time management plan, e.g. end of July, group consensus about the draft; Aug AB review; late Aug or early Sep, official release. (might be a bit optimistic, but worth trying to)

  *   Im unclear which issues are considered the highest priority amongst the task force membership
**Anther agenda item for this month phone call. Need the input from the group on the priorities.
P       Some issues in the repository are labelled CEPC but others probably do relate to the CEPC and are not labelled
I may be on my own here, in which case fine, carry on, but in case Im not, does anyone else here have similar problems following the groups work? If so, can we fix them, maybe by introducing a general process that the group uses in the absence of some exceptional circumstance, and writing some guidance? Maybe there is an existing description of the groups working approach V please point me to it if there is!

I was distracted from the PWE group work for a couple of months due to frequent travels, and found myself lost track of the discussion. Tzviyas 1:1 phone calls helped me a lot to catch up, but this might not apply to the whole group. Introducing a general process and decision policy would be a good idea.

Last but not least, if we want the community to have a new CEPC by hand on TPAC2019, there are some work to do for this summer :D

Angel

Received on Monday, 8 July 2019 13:37:59 UTC