Enable GitHub Discussions

[filip26]

GitHub discussions provide more features than plain comments below an issue and it could be a great place to answer questions or/and having (long) discussions over complicated topics. See some comments added to issue w3c/vc-data-integrity#272 are valid questions/concerns that should be answered/addressed but are just loosely related to the issue - responses get lost in a long thread and disappear in history after the issue is closed

In the best case scenario, discussions - questions/answers - could become another source of information helping implementers and developers to get aboard.

[aljones15]

More information on Github Discussions here. I am +1 to this, but we might consider using discussions on specific repos first before making it universal. Data Integrity would be a good start.

[BigBlueHat]

This is really a question about W3C policy and process. I agree that issue conversations can spin out into conversations/debates and not ultimately help the closure of the issue (though that fact should probably cause the creation of more issues per subtopic that arise), but given that W3C robots center their work around issues, I think opening GitHub Discussions up (in addition to the mailing list...and issues...and phone calls...) would actually be a set back in this case as it would create "yet another" place to discuss and curate.

Regardless, this would need discussion with the team contacts and the WG, and at this stage of the game, I'd suggest we avoid opening more boxes...and just work on better subtopic issue management--i.e. if you fork the conversation in an issue, due the audience the service of creating an issue for the new topic you're starting. Maybe... 😉

[filip26]

I understand that to make such a decision might involve a deep conversation and must fit with internal W3C workflow and policies. I'm not sure that all those listed channels could be seen as a replacement. GitHub discussions are something like an alternative to SO focused on an integration with a repo - I'm not advocating for GitHub, but for something better than maillist + issues + irc (omitting calls - not the right place to ask for help or have long complicated discussions) .

here is a link on EUDI ARF GitHub repo, as an example.
https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-architecture-and-reference-framework/discussions

[msporny]

@filip26 Yes, large sections of w3c/vc-data-integrity#272 should be a discussion, just like large parts of #947 and #929 should have been a "discussion".

That said, this directly impacts me and the paperwork I have to do to ensure that the WG hasn't left itself open to any formal objections. Opening up yet another place where we have to prove the WG processed a "discussion" appropriately, followed W3C Process, can point to WG call log discussion, was labeled appropriately, went through the objection/proposal/resolution stages... none of that is worked out for Github discussions (or any other thing).

The way W3C Process works is that to get a global standard, the WG has to prove that it processed every single comment against the specification per W3C Process... not doing so, even for a single issue, can result in a formal objection. Anyone on the planet can formally object to a proposal -- W3C specifications have an extremely high bar for consensus (and many of us view this as a good thing). The downside is, of course, that we have to be able to prove that we've met that high bar... and by "we", I mostly mean a handful of largely overworked/volunteer Editors, Chairs, and Staff Contacts. I know you understand what I'm getting at considering you're a well regarded and prolific open source developer. :)

We will discuss this with the WG (because we are compelled by W3C Process to do so, an issue was raised afterall), though I would rather we don't open up Github discussions as it can be used as an attack vector against us finishing the work: "Oh, you didn't resolve that discussion! I formally object! I said 10 things in that discussion that the WG didn't consider!"... etc.

That said, @filip26, having a venue for questions, separate from the WG, would be really good. Stack Overflow, as you have suggested previously, would be a good venue for that sort of stuff and a super useful community resource.

[filip26]

I agree that the sad truth about today's world is that every good intention might become an opportunity for misuse, e.g. by spreading questionable information, etc. Nice guys finish last.

In order to do not complicate things, and to avoid more obstructions, I'm closing this. Perhaps, next time.