Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Workstream editors are only listed in the Acknowledgments? #210

Open
cwilso opened this issue Jan 25, 2023 · 6 comments
Open

Workstream editors are only listed in the Acknowledgments? #210

cwilso opened this issue Jan 25, 2023 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@cwilso
Copy link
Contributor

cwilso commented Jan 25, 2023

I was digging through trying to understand who the current Editors are for some of the Workstreams. Am I correct in thinking that we don't keep a list of Editors per Workstream anywhere, other than in the Acknowledgments of each spec? That seems a bit chaotic.

@domenic
Copy link
Member

domenic commented Jan 26, 2023

https://whatwg.org/workstreams I think has what you're looking for, produced from https://github.com/whatwg/sg/blob/main/db.json

@cwilso
Copy link
Contributor Author

cwilso commented Jan 26, 2023

Thank you! That's exactly what I was looking for. It seems like that page should be linked from somewhere, like Work Mode, specs, FAQ... I'm happy to think that through and put together a PR, LMK if you think it's a bad idea.

@domenic
Copy link
Member

domenic commented Jan 26, 2023

I think the reason we haven't done it so far is because the distinction between workstreams and specs is kind of inside-baseball. I'm sympathetic to that sentiment, e.g., it seems like web developers would be better off not caring or knowing about workstreams.

But from an SDO perspective, it is indeed kind of weird for this central process mechanism to be hidden. So yeah, adding a link seems reasonable.

@cwilso
Copy link
Contributor Author

cwilso commented Jan 26, 2023

Hmm, true. I think my only concern is that it's not that easy to tell who the Editors are for a given spec - maybe that should just get listed in specs. Hmm.

@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented Jan 26, 2023

We could add per-standard editor information to the Workstreams page. Perhaps in a way that it only shows if they are not also the Workstream editor.

It was a somewhat deliberate decision to not emphasize the editor too much. And therefore they are listed in the Acknowledgments section. Any requests should really go into the issue tracker and in the end it's a much larger community that makes the specification work than any particular individual.

Amongst ourselves and on whatwg/meta we sometimes speak of maintainers. I've sometimes wondered if we should just adopt that terminology, but thus far I haven't felt strongly enough about it as it would be a bunch of work. 😊

@cwilso cwilso added the agenda On the agenda for the next SG meeting label Feb 1, 2023
@cwilso
Copy link
Contributor Author

cwilso commented Feb 15, 2023

Seems like adding a link in https://participate.whatwg.org/ to "and the workstreams[link] they are part of" would solve this.

@cwilso cwilso added awaiting PR and removed agenda On the agenda for the next SG meeting labels Feb 15, 2023
@cwilso cwilso self-assigned this Feb 15, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants