Re: Google/Mozilla Presentation API update

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <
anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
You're welcome!


> > 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.
>

To clarify, I was proposing that the GH issue tracker would only be used to
record the outcome of discussions that were resolved via mailing list, and
not as a place where issues themselves should be discussed.  This would
prevent forked discussions among the subset of GH subscribers.

However, if there are interesting drive-by comments that originate on GH,
then we should relay them to the mailing list and encourage the commenter
to join the list.

m.


>
> > 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
>