W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Tools plea

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 21:50:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_+UXPVPEEnvhes65M0W15RFLKtbKVH3PdMQgc3pC+O-BA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Adler, Patrick" <patrick.adler@chi.frb.org>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-webpayments-ig@w3.org" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
Hi all,

I have just migrated the manifesto to the ReSpec format on GitHub:

It was a pretty time-consuming job so I'd suggest moving between formats is
only done once. I see your motivations Pat, but I think the work of the
editors will become very onerous if all of the feedback given into a Google
Doc must be regularly pushed to the Wiki and then GitHub (or even just to

It's definitely unfortunate that Google Docs isn't working for a lot of
folks, perhaps there is a similar, more user friendly tool than the wiki
someone can suggest to try?


On 6 May 2015 at 19:26, Adler, Patrick <patrick.adler@chi.frb.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
> Just wanted to add my $0.02 to the thread.  I¹m in a similar boat as Erik
> and Nick in that there are restrictions on a number of collaborative sites
> I am able to use due to the current (and necessary) security climate that
> has sadly become a way of life to protect the organizations we work for.
> That being said, and speaking as a heavy contributor of materials to the
> group, I do think the approach that Manu (+10 to Manu too :) ) outlines
> has been very effective in helping us to make progress quickly.  As an
> editor, I have had to work through some minor inconveniences (working on a
> standalone machine) to make edits to the early drafts on google docs, but
> have found the inline comments and edit suggestions worth the pain of
> doing so - at least for the earliest period of editing where there is a
> lot of discussion around certain topics.  To Nick¹s point (and I think it
> is a great one[+10 Nick]), we should be much more clear about that process
> and tools that are being used to edit the documents so that those that
> wanted to contribute know how and where the artifacts are and at which
> state they are in.  Also, I think it would be good to establish some kind
> of cadence to the editing process internally, so that if we are using
> multiple tools, there would be an easy way to know when to look for
> updates.
> Perhaps to add to Manu¹s suggestion below as a proposal, what would the
> group feel about the following?
> 1. Rough editors drafts and updates made daily to google docs (this is in
> a sense the bleeding edge of the document for those closest to it to
> structure thoughts on content and key material) - Likely this is most
> useful to core editors of the document
> This would provided the value of allowing editors to formulate content and
> thought process very efficiently at the expense of some barriers to direct
> access to this version from restrictive networks. Comments from all
> document locations are incorporated into this version (Google Docs, Wiki,
> Git/ReSpec)
> 2. On a minimum of a weekly basis, document is ³synched² to the wiki where
> they are accessible to the whole IG in an unrestrictive way, with a
> dedicated wiki page which contains feedback/content suggestions to be
> included in the next incremental update.  This would make it easy for
> editors to look for feedback, and since the whole document is regularly
> refreshed on a defined cadence, it helps people to know when they should
> look for new content without requiring the whole IG to respond to every
> minor incremental update (unless they wanted to)
> 3.  Once a draft has reached a fair level of stability, it could be
> migrated to Github and the Re-spec format and made visible as an editors
> draft or FPWD.  This prevents the editors from having to do a lot of extra
> formatting on material that may or may not make it into the final draft
> had we used only the respec format.
> Like Manu, I¹m open to working in a way that the group feels is most
> productive and inclusive and would welcome others thoughts on whether the
> outlined approach makes sense, or whether there are other options that we
> should pursue.
> Best regards,
> Pat
> On 5/6/15, 11:25 AM, "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> >On 05/06/2015 08:28 AM, Telford-Reed, Nick wrote:
> >> Can we please standardise on where we are working?
> >
> >There is a method to the madness... :)
> >
> >In general, W3C groups tend to use the tools that make the people
> >contributing most effective.
> >
> >Google Docs are used for documents that are in the formative stages and
> >require a lot of collaborative editing and commenting. Documents live
> >here for a month or two and then move onto the Wiki or into Github.
> >
> >The Wiki is used for shorter content that requires less collaborative
> >editing and commenting. Content that we intend to publish lives here for
> >2-3 months while it is refined and then moves into Github.
> >
> >Github is used for documents that have stabilized a bit and will be
> >published via W3C. This is the long-term repository for the content
> >we're officially publishing as a group. ReSpec is the editing tool that
> >helps us format the content into the proper W3C publication format.
> >
> >So, the pipeline we have right now is:
> >
> >Google Docs -> Wiki -> Github
> >
> >Things move left to right as they reach certain levels of maturity.
> >
> >As for the firewall issues - yes, that sucks and if it's an issue and
> >you want to contribute to a Google Doc, we can move the doc into the
> >wiki (but we lose a good chunk of our collaborative ability in doing
> >so). The alternative being, use a non-firewalled network at work or at a
> >local coffee shop.
> >
> >I think everyone is open to finding something that works better for
> >contributors, so if you have a better idea, let us know and we'll try to
> >make it happen.
> >
> >-- manu
> >
> >--
> >Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> >Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> >blog: High-Stakes Credentials and Web Login
> >http://manu.sporny.org/2014/identity-credentials/
> >
> This e-mail message, including attachments, is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or proprietary
> information.  If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact
> the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 19:51:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:35 UTC