dbooth-boston
commented
1 year ago This seems like a good idea. And since chairs and editors invariably end up doing most of the work, I think it's important to give special consideration to their preferred work patterns, while also balancing that against a goal of encouraging community participation and contributions. A few comments though:
-
In the less recent past this W3C group accepted PRs from anyone, and I think that's consistent with W3C and github culture in general. If the group wants to deviate from that, then it seems like it should be a conscious group decision. (And it's fine with me if the group makes that choice.)
-
The CPC is already a fairly mature document, so even seemingly minor changes -- apart from fixing simple typos -- are likely to need group discussion.
-
Discussion of substantive issues works better in an issue thread than in a PR thread, IMO.
-
When a PR is opened for an issue, but the group has not yet resolved the issue, it causes discussion to occur in the PR thread, thus leading to two threads that readers must try to follow, which is confusing. (That just happened for this issue, for example.)
-
For the above reasons, I think it is generally preferable to hold off on creating a PR for a substantive issue until after the group has reached agreement on the issue.
wareid
There's no information for newcomers to this repo on how they should best contribute if they have review feedback. Suggest creating a CONTRIBUTING.md file to explain the desired working practices.