Re: [webvtt] Spec editing

On 23/09/2015 11:05, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

>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.

For me the working model is now extremely confusing between TTCG, WHATWG
and TTWG. 2 places for this work was bad enough. 3 is definitely a crowd.
If you want this repo on github, fine, but what's wrong with the W3C repo,
since the Text Tracks CG is a W3C group?


>>>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.

The TTWG needs to track issues on the Rec track snapshots of the document.
Though those issues may helpfully be duplicated in github for the Editors
and other collaborators, the option in the TTWG tracker for raising issues
there remains available.

As I understand it the desire for a 'living specification' is to allow for
shorter iterations between publications so that the spec can be more
responsive. Whereas to get to Rec the steps needed are unavoidably slower
but result in a stable version that can be referenced. Therefore the
Editors must maintain two separate and possibly divergent versions of the
spec, with different issues, one the 'living' one and the other the Rec
track one. TTWG is primarily interested in the Rec track one so we need a
process for bringing through changes from the living doc. Having a
separate issue tracker may actually be a useful tool for keeping the issue
sets separate.

Cheers,

Nigel

>
>
>>> 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
>



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 10:43:13 UTC