W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webauthn@w3.org > June 2017

(my view of) the state of our issue assignment process..

From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:10:24 -0700
To: W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <76e57b0a-0818-a77c-f8bd-d169422516b4@KingsMountain.com>
..such as it is..

@angeloKai wrote in https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/469

 > Assigning this to @jyasskin at the moment as whoever brings the
 > topic is generally considered the assignee. We can discuss
 > changing this at next WG meeting.

well, that actually is not how we've been operating, it seems to me at 
least. We for-better-or-worse have an unwritten issue-handling process, 
and it is not assigned-to-whom-submits. In fact ~1/2 of our issues are 
unassigned. I've been assigning issues to myself which I'm committing to 
resolve (whether or not I submitted it). Others have done the same. On 
calls, if someone agrees to work on an issue, then someone different 
than that person occasionally performs the assignment because it is 
convenient at the time.

This is in contrast to assessing issues and anointing them with labels 
and milestones -- various of us have just been doing that and changing 
them if we think its incorrect or whatever, and if it is contentious 
then we've been discussing them on the calls (but this is rare it seems).

Anyway, the above is only my perspective on how we've been operating, 
perhaps there's others. Coming to explicit agreement on how issue 
assignment is performed would likely be a good idea.

Also, our walking through PRs and issues on calls seems to be being 
helpful.

HTH,

=JeffH
Received on Monday, 5 June 2017 21:11:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 07:26:26 UTC