Re: process concerns

> On Mar 9, 2023, at 11:38 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> It should be possible to find out the topics that the working group has discussed and what work it is undertaking.  Currently the only way to do the former is look through the entire logs of the previous working group meetings.  The only way to do the latter is to understand the logs and make inferences as to what the dicussions in the logs imply.
> 
> PROCESS PROPOSAL:  Working group scribes ensure that meeting minutes have topic headings that reflect the discussion in the meetings, editing the IRC log and regenerating minutes if necessary.  Topic headings should be specific enough to determine what was discussed.  The topic heading "quick status update of ongoing activities" is too vague by itself unless all discussion was only about administrivia and otherwise should be augmented by subtopics.  Good topic headings will allow one to easily find out what has been discussed by looking at https://www.w3.org/services/meeting-minutes?channel=rdf-star&num=2000

We could also use subtopics, depending on how they would show up in the meeting index. Also, this index should be easy to find on the group home page without needing to search through past emails to find it.

> [snip]
> 
> It should be possible to find out what is happening in the working group and how it relates to what the working group has approved.  Finding out what is happening curently requires looking through issues and pull requests in 23 repositories, and this is may not generate a comprehensive list.
> 
> PROCESS PROPOSAL:  Once a resolution to undertaken an activity is approved one or more actions are created in the main working group repository (https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg) and linked back to the resolution.  If the activity involves changes to documents, issues are created in their repositories and linked back to an action issue in the main repository.  Pull requests then are linked back to the document issue.  (QUESTION:  Should merging significant pull requests require some sort of, potentially indirect, working group approval.)
> 
> See https://github.com/w3c/sparql-entailment/pull/10 and https://github.com/w3c/sparql-entailment/issues/7 for a mock-up of how the linking would work.

As an alternative to creating issues iin w3c/rdf-star-wg mirroring those in individual repositories, we could probably make better use of GitHub Projects. Pierre-Antoine set up on [1], which was never properly utilized as it requires manual administration. In a call a couple of weeks ago, Timothe mentioned project-bot [2] which looks like it can be added to a project and allow different columns to track issues and pull requests across multiple repositories based on filters.

Avoiding duplication and using the platform to the best ability seems generally better than duplicating issues across repositories. Of course, some issues do transcend a single repository and having group-wide issues is sometimes warranted.

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>

[1] https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20
[2] https://github.com/apps/project-bot

> [snip]