- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:05:14 +0200
- To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:37:26 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> Why would there be a need to have two editors' drafts? > > There wouldn't. OK good. :-) > I am not sure how to handle the flow between the WHATWG github repo, > the current github repo, the W3C CVS and the Echidna publishing > pipeline. I've went ahead and moved the repo to the whatwg organization, so there will not be two github repos. >> What is the barrier for the TTWG? When discussing barrier to entry, >> what is >> most relevant in my opinion is the barrier for new contributors. > > It's either a matter of signing up to the W3C bug tracker of signing > up to Github. > Many of the TTWG members don't have the latter, which is what I was > referring to. > If we do both as you suggested below, that solves that problem anyway. OK. Then I suggest we ask the relevant TTWG members to create a GitHub account to contribute new issues. As far as new contributors go, my assumption is that most have a GitHub account but very few have a W3C bugzilla account. >> We don't necessarily need to move the issues. We can keep the old >> issues in >> bugzilla and file new ones on GitHub. This seems to work relatively >> well for >> the HTML spec. But if people would prefer to have the issues moved, I >> can >> take care of that. > > We might end up with some duplication by running both, but that's > probably ok. Yeah. cheers -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 10:04:49 UTC