- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 07:49:20 +0000
- To: "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- CC: "Rottsches, Dominik" <dominik.rottsches@intel.com>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com>, Marco Chen <mchen@mozilla.com>, Wesley Johnston <wjohnston@mozilla.com>, Evelyn Hung <ehung@mozilla.com>
Hi MarkFo, +Francois, On 04 Sep 2014, at 01:58, mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com> wrote: > I have filed issues #8 - #19 in the GitHub issue tracker based on discussions in the CG and attempted to back-reference them (some of the threads were very long so this is not precise). It may not be exhaustive and I encourage others to add or edit issues. > > https://github.com/webscreens/presentation-api/issues Thanks, I think you did a great job capturing the open issues. > I propose a workflow where we continue to discuss issues here, and use GH to record the resolution of issues when consensus has been reached. After resolution, a pull request can be used to propose updates to the specification documents for one or several issues. Sounds good considering: * all the group participants are subscribed to this mailing list, but not all may be watching the repo (or have a GH account) * the discussion that forks to different places can be hard to follow I know some people would prefer GH-only workflow (there are pros: tight integration, drive-by comments in GH issues from people not subscribed to the W3C lists etc.), but I suggest we try the model proposed by MarkFo and see how it goes. We can readjust as needed. > My assumption is that the majority of these issues would carry over to the WG as well. If you anticipate a different workflow (i.e. will we move away from GitHub for issue tracking and change management) then we can deal with it then, but a heads up would be appreciated. I’d like to see also the WG use the tools that make it the most productive. The W3C Process is fairly flexible in terms of tooling and workflow the WGs may use. I see no reasons why we couldn't continue to use the same tools and the workflow (Francois, please correct me if you identify issues). [On a related note, there’s also the W3C Tracker <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/> which has some pretty nifty features such as IRC and email interfaces, but sadly no GH integration. It may be useful for tracking actions assigned to people though, but we can cross that bridge when we get there.] Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 07:49:52 UTC