I appreciate your devotion to this, elf. Maybe we can talk about this -- at least you and I -- in Paris? Ann Bassetti From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:45 AM To: Bassetti, Ann Cc: Harry Halpin; public-socialweb@w3.org; public-social-interest@w3.org Subject: Re: Issue-19 questions remain On 04/22/2015 12:59 AM, Bassetti, Ann wrote: > That's a good idea for the next agenda! There were several stories though, so let's figure out which one(s) we want to hone in on. Let's maybe start a new thread for it? > But, elf, it's too bad you weren't at the meeting last week -- because, the general sense was that IG people would rather keep the IG IRC separate from WG IRC. One reason was that different sets of topics are discussed. The other was that, in the instance the 2 groups might meet at the same time -- it wouldn't work to be sharing IRC for minutes. > > I'm cc'ing the IG folks ... anyone should feel free to correct or augment my explanation about IRC. I see it very unlikely that IG and WG would ever hold separate meetings at the same time, If we look at the list of participants we will see overlap of at least *17 people*. People will much more likely check logs of conversations if we all use only single channel #social. I can dig out minutes where we marked switching to it as RESOLVED but later in the meeting needed to void this resolution just because of issues with trackbot. Last but not least, if we try it and experience problems we can always change back, doing it once doesn't mean that we will change channels all the time. When it comes to ISSUE/ACTION, we can use *labels* and *milestones* on github. Github also supports *checklists* in markdown. Many people in a group don't feel used to neither github or w3c tracker, getting up to speed with *just one* of them should also make our workflow that much smoother.
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2015 08:01:22 UTC