Re: [w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api] Issue marker cleanup (#133)

> On 16 Apr 2017, at 12:47 am, ianbjacobs <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I think we should review the editorial process, especially, @marcoscaceres, if you become an active editor.
> 

I promise I will after we get Payment Request to CR. As much as I want to, I don't have the bandwidth to help edit this one right now :( 

> My understanding of what we are doing to get to FPWD is mostly cleanup and putting issue markers in the spec. I would not characterize what we are doing as adding things on a whim.
> 

I get edgy if things move too fast. In the spec, we always wait until at least one another implementer has a chance to review and approve the changes. Preferably, we should have two reviewers who are experts in whatever is being added/modified doing the review. 

> Once we get to FPWD, and as implementations increase, we may well want to adjust our process. I think there is strong agreement that there should be review before substantive additions. Let's figure out (after FPWD) how to do that effectively. I also would like to make a pitch for the ability to fix obvious editorial bugs without review,
> 
They have to be super obvious (e.g., broken markup). All other changes, no matter how trivial you believe they might be, must be reviewed: there are a lot of moving parts in these specs, so small changes tend to have ripple effects. 
> at least until the spec is much more mature.
> 
We need to flip the process, IMO. Immature things should never go in the spec: only in branches, which after a lot of review and iterations go into the spec. That's how we've been doing for the PR spec. 

Take a look at the way Domenic and I have been working in the PR spec - in addition to our own back and forth, we always make sure changes are also approved by at least 1 person from Microsoft. 

We should identify key stakeholders who can review changes. 

> My goal right now is to stabilize the spec in its current form to get to FPWD, as we agreed at the FTF meeting. I have no other edits planned, but imagine there may be some small changes based on next Tuesday's discussion.
> 
Sounds fine - but let's switch to using the same process as the PR spec ASAP. 

> Ian
> 
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
> 


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-payment-apps-api/pull/133#issuecomment-294301335