Initial draft of a CG/WG Staging process doc #4
Conversation
|
Historical side-note -- the process doc itself has roots in WHATWG's process, which itself was inspired by ECMA's https://tc39.es/ process docs. |
Yeah, +1. I think I capture that in this section here [1]? [1] |
Oh, whoops, thanks :) (I'll leave the comment for lazy ppl like me :) ) |
|
@cwilso I never thanked you on list for your helpful email to the list about CG<-->WG relations. I figured I should ping you here for visibility. if you or any interested parties on the AB and/or AC have the bandwidth, feel free to watch this repo, comment on its PRs, etc etc. We are discussing a CG charter today, and hopefully the CG<>WG workflow document and one or more WG charters will be discussed as well in the coming weeks. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think overall this is looking really good, with well-considered improvements from the Fed ID CG/WG stages doc, which I hope can go both ways (towards a goal of making these as much the same as possible, especially for two efforts in such closely adjacent/aligned spaces — FedID and Social Web).
I added one IMO critical fix here that's mostly about reverting to the text in the Fed ID CG/WG Stages proposal, because the intent of Stages is to incubate new things, not to review every small decision. I believe this Suggested edit captures that while retaining the intent we want of incubating both new features in existing specs and potentially proposed new specs.
Co-authored-by: Tantek Çelik <[email protected]>
@ianbjacobs Removed the paragraph on not sing the cg contrib list and not doing contributions on mail list (when using GitHub). that latter sentence was being dropped by users of the template. it's not necessary so making the template consistent with use.
@ianbjacobs @wseltzer The test suite section for the CG Charter template points to a page that is only about WGs. It includes the 2 ways to include test suites in a WG (either as part of the spec or not) and also directly refers to the W3C patent policy. It's not at all relevant to CGs. It would be better just to point to the GitHub LICENSE.md file if in GitHub. I followed links in that material until I found the W3C license used and proposed putting that in the LICENSE.md file for the WebVR CG. That's a separate change I'll suggest in the W3C LICENSE.md file for CGs.
changed it to link to the license section of the charter (since we don't know where they will put their charter in their GitHub repo)
@ianbjacobs Got this from Google in second screen CG. Install tidy from http://binaries.html-tidy.org Download tidyconfig.txt: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/presentation-api/gh-pages/build/tidyconfig.txt Run tidy on command line: tidy -config tidyconfig.txt -o output.html input.html
…Dmitri Zagidulin at TPAC 2024
Co-authored-by: Tantek Çelik <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the quick merge of retaining "features" wording. This looks good enough to land and keep iterating, with @samuelgoto's approval. Would also like @cwilso to take a look at this.
I'm excited to bring these diffs to the base and see others use this too! Good stuff @bumblefudge !! |
|
Remaining steps for this PR to be merged: adding the changes requested by Emelia on the call. (add more references to existing FEP process etc) |
|
@bumblefudge Nicely done! That addresses the remaining change requests from @ThisIsMissEm on the call. |
|
Yeah, I think that works (granted I'm reviewing on mobile so hopefully I didn't miss anything) |
At W3C TPAC 2024, I witnessed @hlflanagan and @wseltzer leading joint CG/WG sessions masterfully implementing sam goto's process doc to direct traffic and provide guidelines for discussion. Serendipitously, @plehegar suggested our CG consider a similar process for how to promote some CG work to normative work in future WGs and/or existing WGs in W3C.
As a potential process addendum, I "forked" @samuelgoto 's doc and adapted it a bit to work we do here. I would suggest we discuss this before making any decisions about chartering normative groups but after establishing some more formal CG charter docs.
EDIT: tantek asked me for a diff to compare my opinionated initial draft to samgoto's inspiration doc, which I used a github gist to produce here. (See tutorial here if you'd like to use this trick in the future to compare any two versions of a file and create a GH permalink for the diff!)