Re: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description

Hi Lisa,

A key thing is that the SC manager (or their nominee) can update the description. If the SC manager did not create the issue, they cannot do that.

I don’t care where it is, so long as there is one place. If it is the issue: The SC manager would need to create a new issue in order to edit it for many of the SCs.

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 11:03
To: Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: can we keep all the converation in the issue. - was Re: Keeping SC text in the pull request description

Hi
Can we keep all the discussion in the original issue and not in pull requests

also the person who submitted the issue can put at the top f the issue the current wording proposal that would be even better.

The SC manager will have to ask the proposer to add the new text but I think that is a small price to pay for tracking. It also means the propose is on top of the current wording

to be honest I would rather it was all done in a google doc
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>



---- On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:30:59 +0200 Steve Lee<steve@opendirective.com<mailto:steve@opendirective.com>> wrote ----
+1
Steve Lee
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com



On 20 February 2017 at 23:53, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
> If we stick to pull requests as the place for discussion, then I recommend:
>
> Keep the up to date SC text & new glossary terms in the description of the pull request.
>
> That way it is at the top, and (assuming the SC manager does the pull request) it can be kept up to date.
>
> I had issues on a Resize text where it went through a lot of change, and people were referring to the old version in the issue, which I couldn't update. Frustrating for everyone, so it seems best to keep it up to date at the top of the place it is being discussed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair