First feedback on the GitHub usage

[Laurent Michel]

Dear VO,

I'm starting to use the new GitHub framework for the VO standard elaboration.
My current experience concerns DataLink 1.1 which is still in design phase (before WD)
This project is quite active these days with ~5 contributors which provides an interesting experiment of our Github standard 
process.

I would just give one personal feedback on the follow-up of the discussions we are having on Github.

Let's take an example of how things should work:
- The author A1 proposes to add the feature F to the proposal.
- A1 opens the issue proposing F.
- Another author A2 does not agree with adding F to the proposal
- The discussion continues on the  ISSUES panel until a compromise is reached.
- Finally, A1 and A2 agree on adding F' in the text
- A PR process can be triggered to push F'. The PR discussions are now just related to the wording of F', but no longer its 
relevance.

In the Datalink case, one PR has been open for some reason a little bit too early, therefore the discussion open on the ISSUE 
continued on the PR thread. This has 2 bad consequences:
- Followers have now to check two places (ISSUES and PR)
- The discussion on the PR concerns the relevance of the PR itself.

This example shows the necessity of clearly separate both steps (ISSUE and PR):
- The ISSUE tool has to be used to discuss on *what* has to be add/remove/modify on the standard
- The PR panel has to be used to discuss *how* to do it (e.g. wording).
- The PR must not be open before an agreement has been found on the ISSUE.

This does not relate to some Github setup but to a few good usage rules that should be promoted somehow.
May some people with a better Git experience than mine share their feeling about this?

-- 
jesuischarlie/Tunis/Paris/Bruxelles/Berlin

Laurent Michel
SSC XMM-Newton
Tél : +33 (0)3 68 85 24 37
Fax : +33 (0)3 )3 68 85 24 32
Université de Strasbourg <http://www.unistra.fr>
Observatoire Astronomique
11 Rue de l'Université
F - 67200 Strasbourg