Re: Moving the process to github…

We are aware of some companies that block GH.  I'm not aware of any nations that block it. 

On December 28, 2016 4:00:03 AM EST, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>On 12/27/2016 10:15 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> [
>>> 1. What about where github is blocked?
>>> This has been reported as being the case for various W3C member
>organisations, based on policy at various different levels.
>>> Has W3C done any systematic investigation to determine the scope of
>the problem, and how affected stakeholders can continue
>>> to participate?
>>
>> We have not done any systematic investigation.
>>
>> Indeed, as you point out, there are some Member organizations for
>whom github is blocked.  But we have not heard this
>> complaint from a large number of Members.
>>
>> Github being blocked has not inhibited many Working Groups from using
>it.  Since these groups typically have broader
>> participation that W3C Process - I doubt that this should be the
>primary reason for W3C Process not to use github.
>
>This is the first I've heard of this, and it's somewhat concerning to
>me.
>
>In the case of the CSSWG, we do have
>   a) Public drafts on /TR and editor's drafts on drafts.csswg.org
>   b) A public, archived W3C mailing list which historically has,
>      and can continue to, accept feedback
>c) A public, archived W3C mailing list archiving all GitHub discussions
>   d) A read-write mercurial mirror of the git repos on hg.csswg.org
>so it is possible, though perhaps a bit awkward, to follow and
>participate
>in the CSSWG's work without access to github.com. I'd expect the
>Process
>group to set up similar infrastructure. I will note however,
>participation
>without access to GitHub wasn't the motivation for us--the existence of
>historical infrastructure and a desire to maintain archives beyond the
>demise of GitHub was--so we haven't audited the viability of
>GitHub-less
>participation, and there are no coherent instructions...
>
>Are these Members blocked at the organization-network level (which is
>annoying but tolerable), or a national level (which means we have a
>W3C-wide accessibility problem wrt all groups using GitHub)?
>
>> . Producing coherent drafts?
>> While the document has been in Mercurial, I have attempted as editor
>>to provide periodic updates that are a coherent draft, including a
>>relevant status section, a written change log describing the
>substantive
>>alterations in drafts, and more recently a diff-marked HTML document
>to
>>highlight changes between the current editor's version and the
>currently
>>operative process. How much of this is worth continuing to do, and how
>>do we make it happen, given the workflows of github?
>
>Mercurial and Git provide equivalent infrastructure as far as diffs go,
>so any considerations here would not be affected by a change to GitHub.
>One thing that does help a lot, though, is following
>   http://rhodesmill.org/brandon/2012/one-sentence-per-line/
>(Or rather, “one sentence per phrase” since our sentences do tend to
>get
>quite long sometimes ;) Tab and I have adopted this for all our specs.
>
>Personally I value the creation of coherent drafts and changelogs, and
>HTML diffs where appropriate [1], so as a spec editor I've put in the
>effort to produce these (even though sometimes it's kindof annoying :p)
>Public VCS is useful and important, but it's imho not a perfect
>substitute
>for a human-generated review of changes.
>
>[1] As an example, Flexbox provides an extremely detailed changelog
>over
>   the course of its CR phase, since this helps implementers notice and
>   understand what's changed, and therefore what they need to update in
>    their implementations. https://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox-1/#changes
>   (My changelogs for less stable and complicated specs tend to be more
>     high-level and omit the diffs.)
>
>~fantasai

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.