- From: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:24:12 +0000
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- CC: "tink@tink.uk" <tink@tink.uk>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <58A1894C.1000001@interaccess.ie>
The chairs are aware that this is a tricky process to keep up with - thanks for the overview Alastair. Regarding Leonies comment about the outcome of calls and how to track that, as e'one cannot make a call - if there were relevant outputs these could be included as comments by the SC manager within the issues or the PR (whatever is relevant). HTH Josh > Alastair Campbell <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com> > 13 February 2017 at 10:08 > > Well, that is a problem already. If it is on the pull request then > everything can be included there: > > - Link to the previous issue page at the top; > - Comments from the survey or call can be added as comments on the PR, > e.g. https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/100#issuecomment-278184960 > - Updates to the pull request (i.e. new commits) still go into the > same pull request. > - The description at the top of the PR should be kept up to date with > the latest SC text. > > It does take time for the SC manager gather everything into one place, > but I can’t see a better alternative at the moment. At least now I (as > SC manager) can edit the description on the PR so anyone coming to it > can see the latest text. > > Cheers, > > -Alastair > > Léonie Watson <mailto:tink@tink.uk> > 13 February 2017 at 09:58 > > > The problem is that the discussion is then scattered between the > original Github issue, n number of PR threads, plus a conference call > or two and quite possibly some discussion on the email list. > > > > Léonie > Alastair Campbell <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com> > 10 February 2017 at 11:00 > > Because Jim put up all the LVTF SCs as issues, we had the problem of > the SC manager not being able to update the description, and it made > Jim a bottleneck for updates. (He was good at making updates, but it > just added another step across timezones.) > > So long as the SC manager makes the pull request, they should be able > to keep the description up to date, e.g: > https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/100 > > I think that’s the best approach… unless SC managers can’t do the pull > request? > > -Alastair > > Léonie Watson <mailto:tink@tink.uk> > 10 February 2017 at 10:35 > This may not work for WCAG, but in case it helps.. > > A project I work on has a Github issue for each thing to be reviewed. > The content to be reviewed is the first comment in the issue. Whenever > the draft is updated (based on Github comments or feedback from other > sources), the first comment in the thread is edited to reflect the > changed content. > > > Providing the SC manager is able to edit the issue thread, they would > be the ones responsible for updating the draft SC in response to > feedback from different places. It does mean that one person has to be > responsible for updating the draft, but the advantage is that all > comments are kept in the one thread, instead of split over the > original issue and multiple subsequent PR threads. It also means there > is only ever one definitive place where the content to be reviewed can > be found. > > > > > Léonie > Andrew Kirkpatrick <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> > 9 February 2017 at 23:00 > We are also worried about tracking all the comments so people can find > them. Please feel free to advice on that too! > > This is one of the advantages of not opening a second pull request – > the comments stay with the pull request. There is a transition when > the pull request is made in that the comments initially were in the > issue, but once the pull request is opened: > > 1) the issue should be closed, and a link to the pull request added to > the issue > 2) Comments should be made on the pull request and not on the issue. > > Thanks, > AWK > > > ---- On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:29:10 +0200 *Andrew > Kirkpatrick<akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>* wrote ---- > > -- Joshue O Connor Director | InterAccess.ie
Received on Monday, 13 February 2017 10:24:56 UTC