|
|
|
|
|
by gsnedders
3400 days ago
|
|
Many of the smaller, newer groups with fewer people with a background in the W3C end up being somewhat dysfunctional and with odd processes and that almost certainly makes it feel harder to participate than it should be. From prodding around a bit (notably [0], which sadly is in Member-only space, but plenty of administrivia is there, and in principle no technical work for almost all groups), it seems like every issue reported to the Working Group (regardless of where) should have ended up with a GitHub issue, with [1] being meant to have been all issues while the specs were in CR. Pointing in the specs to a mailing list to report issues, and then relying on someone to copy them into GitHub, seems doomed to fail: it's far, far too easy for one thing to not get copied. Really the "Status of the Document" should've pointed to GitHub for new issues being filed (possibly with a fallback to the mailing list for those unable to use GitHub for organisational or other reasons). [0]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2016OctDec/0143....
[1]: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/milestone/3?closed=1 |
|