Open hober opened 4 years ago
Impressive!
Personally, I have not been a huge fan of the one repo per document approach. This just seems to lead to a bigger hole into the TAG abyss, as most of these repos remain unwatched. Would be a good time to discuss if we should consolidate findings and whatnots into per-category repo at least.
Presentations was intended to version control the TAG update slide deck @torgo uses every AC meeting, plus other talks we give during developer meetups so people can find them. That hasn't happened, so I think it's time we just delete the repo.
Specs... are we even allowed to publish specs? IIRC that wasn't the case in the current process. Should we ask WICG if they want to take over anything we have?
I think repo-per-document works well for issue separation but badly for notifications and querying for issues that we need to deal with. But the way I (and maybe a few others) see the all-repo notification stream is the GitHub/Slack integration, which is my main way of seeing notifications for the TAG's repositories. So I (and I think a few others) who use that do see the notifications. I'm not sure what the state of the chairs' tools for agenda management is as far as running queries against all repos.
Ah right, obsoletion - wonder if that could just be a different template for design-reviews, since it is pretty low traffic (and we aren't doing a good job at watching it)
secure-the-web | Inactive | @travisleithead (N) | Archive. | Despite the repo name, this is not the source of our Secure the Web finding. That's in web-https. |
---|
Archive sounds great--I don't even remember this.
client-certificates | Ask @travisleithead. |
---|
This one is overtaken by events (e.g., removal of <keygen>
was 6+ years ago). I think most of this also predates the work in the Web Authentication WG, which espouses the principles identified in the document AFAICT. Archive sounds good to me.
We have a lot of GitHub repositories, and sometimes it's not clear which one we should use for what, or which ones are going concerns and which ones are stale. I'd like to do some spring cleaning. Here's a list of every TAG repo that exists right now, and what I think we should do with them.
Meta (repos about the TAG)
Several of these seem rendundant with each other to me.
w3ctag.github.io
orprocess
as appropriate.process
repo.w3ctag.github.io
.Reviews (design and otherwise)
Individual design reviews that got their own repos for some reason
None of these are active. We should probably archive all of these repos, after making sure to merge things that should be kept active into the
design-reviews
repo.Findings
These repos contain the drafts of Findings the TAG has published.
I think we should go through all of these to make sure
When we officially publish Findings, the published copy (Status: FINDING) goes in the
w3ctag.github.io
repo (if I understand things correctly). Does this make sense? Shouldn't published Findings live in the same repos as the Draft Findings, in a subdirectory perhaps?Self-check questionnaires
Principles
Our principles documents get published as Findings, and these are both already correctly marked as DRAFT-FINDING, so I don't think there's anything we need to do here.
AWWW
Let's get real. Do we ever actually intend to update AWWW? If so, we should actually assign current TAG participants as editors and take the work on for real. If not, we should consider archiving this repo.
Guides
As far as I can tell, the only one of these that's ever been fleshed out sufficiently & actually gotten traction with readers is the Promises guide. We should consider archiving the rest.
Should guides be EDs (and eventually NOTEs)? Or should they be DRAFT-FINDINGs (and eventually FINDINGs)?
web-https
.Specifications
We are no longer working on any of these. We should archive them all.