Re: TTML2 Editing Process

After some discussion with Nigel, I have updated the Editing Process
document to:

   - add section on nominal review period
   - add information about use of the following labels to help the editor
   and reviewers track merge related activity:
      - Merge Early - used to mark *early* merges
      - Merge Standard - used to mark *non-early* merges
      - Merge Objection - used to mark objections to merges

The Merge Early label is mandatory; while the Merge Standard label is
optional. A PR merge that went the full nominal review period before merge
is not mandated to have a Merge Standard label, which can be assumed to
apply.

Part of the goal in refining this language is to provide enough framework
to permit reviewers sufficient comfort level in managing reviews of early
merges, and, further, that it should be possible for this process to be
used by multiple documents|editors, e.g., TTML2 and IMSC2, where it becomes
the editor's prerogative as to whether to take advantage of early merges or
not.


On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> I have documented the (new) TTML2 Editing Process [1]. This process adopts
> the standard github pull-request mechanism; therefore, it provides the
> advantages of fine-grained review of issue-based merges.
>
> The only variation to what has been followed with IMSC1 is that I have
> retained the commit-then-review (CTR) process that has been used for TTML1
> and TTML2 to date.
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/blob/gh-pages/EDITING.md
>