Re: [webvtt] Spec editing


On 23/09/2015 12:17, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:42:40 +0200, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
> 
>wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>As David said, the CG and the WHATWG is basically the same and has always
> 
>been for WebVTT. WHATWG is also a W3C CG. Having the repo in the whatwg
>github organization just seemed like a more natural place if we host the
>editors' draft at webvtt.spec.whatwg.org.

It's not my view that the CG and the WHATWG are basically the same, though
I agree that many of the active participants are in both groups. I do not
think there's any particular need to host the editor's draft at whatwg.org
- that should be a consequence of the decision on where to work on this
spec rather than a causal factor.

>
>>> 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.
>
>OK. Do I understand correctly that you do not want to stop using W3C
>bugzilla, at least for the Rec-track document?

No, I consider the bugzilla and github issue tracking as both relating to
the CG work. The WG also maintains a Tracker product for issues against
the Rec track version, which is what I was referring to.

FWIW I'm also happy with github issue tracking as a medium-long term
replacement for bugzilla.

Nigel


>
>-- 
>Simon Pieters
>Opera Software

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 11:25:34 UTC