Re: [webauthn] clarify normality of authenticator model - is it actually authenticator API ?

> My problem with this issue (and a number of others) is that it doesn't propose a specific textual change, and is therefore not actionable.

Well, shucks, I disagree. We need to be able to note "we need to think about this..." items (this is one such example) in an organized fashion, and deal with them in our workflow. To me, your complaint is more about not really having an agreed upon workflow for such things.  

A proposed workflow for [stat:Discuss]-labeled issues:

1. label the issue with [stat:Discuss]
2. set milestone for "when we think we ought to figure this out and have an actionable plan"
3. think about it (as we go along and/or as prodded to by chair(s) and colleagues) and if someone has a proposed resolution, add it to the issue comments, or to an appropriate related issue (this assumes setting and keeping issue cross-references, such as to #410 for this issue)
4. if solution approach gets agreed on, impl in a PR referencing the original issue and any associated issues. Close original issue & associated issues upon PR merge.
5. If original issue not resolved and deemed "not necessary to solve now" upon reaching the milestone, but deemed "we do need to do something about this at some point", punt to a future milestone along with associated issues, if any, as apropos. 
6. If original issue deemed "nah, we don't need to do this", or "no longer applicable/apropos", close original issue and any associated issues as apropos. 

GitHub Notification of comment by equalsJeffH
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 01:04:25 UTC