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

Hi All,

Some things to think about. Currently:

1. Comments are in 2 places:
  * The older ones are in the original issue.
  * The newer ones are usually in the pull request.

2. The original issue is labeled "closed", if it has a pull request.

3. The pull request  is labeled "closed", if it has been incorporated
into the FPWD.

4. We link to both the original issue and pull request in the FPWD. We
will likely get comments in both areas as it stands.
  * Do we want people commenting on closed issues?
  * Do we want people commenting on closed pull requests?

5. The original description in the original issue (in most cases)
cannot be edited by the SC manager. SC managers have to ask the
original issue creator to update the description. This creates:
 * Inaccurate information because the description is almost always out
of sync with the latest iteration.
 * Confusion for commenters when they comment on an old description.
 * Extra work for the original SC submitter to update descriptions.
 * A bottleneck for SC managers.

6. SC managers can update the descriptions in their own pull requests.

I agree with Alastair. I don't care where it is, as long as there is
ONE place where the manager can actually manage the SC. If it is the
issue, the SC manager would need to create a NEW issue in order to
edit the description for most of the SCs.

In any event, is there a way in GitHub to stop comments on what we in
fact decide to really close? That may help not having to track
comments in multiple places when we start soliciting public comments.


Kindest Regards,

On 2/21/17, Alastair Campbell <> wrote:
> 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" <>
> Date: Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 11:03
> To: Steve Lee <>, WCAG <>
> Cc: Alastair Campbell <>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf
> <>
> 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<>,
> Twitter<>
> ---- On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:30:59 +0200 Steve
> Lee<<>> wrote ----
> +1
> Steve Lee
> OpenDirective
> On 20 February 2017 at 23:53, Alastair Campbell
> <<>> 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

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 13:34:12 UTC