Re: Change in process?

Just to try to balance the books here. Actually, the process is not as 
broken as you may think. The main new ingredient it Github. This is 
complex for many, even experienced nerds. Firstly, GH is great when 
e'thing is working - it can get very complex, very quick however. This 
has allowed us to do great things though, track comments/progress link 
back and forth etc but it can get messy fast due to the volume of 
traffic and the combined overhead of keeping up with it as well as the 
learning curve.

In terms of SCs and review - when we have SCs for review we create 
surveys and so far they have been included in the weekly agenda, so all 
members do have to keep an eye out for them.

These surveys are of two types: 1) Where specific/focussed feedback is 
needed on an SC issue.  2) For a general yes, I accept this 'concept' in 
principle etc - and these are the ones that will make it into the 
editors draft - or when there is agreement within the group - these are 
candidates for being accepted into the draft.

As Lisa suggested - after the first draft, you can of course meet, 
gather the troops and then tweak new SC that are ready to be folded in 
(if they meet the bar).

Just for some context - without GH, we should be back to working with 
the tracker etc - and managing comments the old way. That wasn't a 
bundle of fun either, but may work for a handful of issues at a time - 
but certainly not a large volume.

The chairs and staff contact are helping members with their issues - and 
will continue to do so, so please do bring things to our attention. We 
are however making progress, which is great.

Joshue O Connor
Director |

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:26:53 UTC