- From: David (Standards) Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:09:49 -0700
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
- Cc: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
On Sep 12, 2014, at 12:36 , Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote: > > > > On September 12, 2014 at 2:06:39 PM, Marcos Caceres (marcos@marcosc.com) wrote: >>> And, when PRs are used for contributions, the workflow above >> also facilitates tracking the provenance of contributions. > > Exactly. Down to the commit level. For those not familiar with GitHub, click on any "n commits" under the names - you can drill down from there: > https://github.com/w3c/manifest/graphs/contributors > > (Note that my specs don't even list "Editors" any more, they literally just point to the contributor list - it removes the egos and provides an objective account of who contributed what). > > To see what a feature branch that has undergone review by multiple individuals looks like: > https://github.com/w3c/netinfo/pull/16 > > In that example, Ilya and I worked together on a feature after having reached agreement with the larger group in: > https://github.com/w3c/netinfo/issues/13 > > In the above, you can see exactly which 7 participants where involved in reaching consensus to add a feature. > > It's so nice to collaborate like this... just sayin’. Oh, it is, no doubt. You’re lucky that you get your contributors to do the ‘editing'; many editors have to take mostly-finished text, fit it into the document, make sure the speling and grammr are all correct, number sections, add tags, and so on… Unfortunately, that weakens the trail of contribution, of course. David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 21:10:20 UTC