<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Ole,all,<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 03/12/2019 à 17:00, Ole Streicher a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0ee32c47-15e3-d0e6-ce04-65b066d8a337@aip.de">
<pre wrap="">Hi all,
On 02.12.19 22:36, Patrick Dowler wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 09:45, François Bonnarel wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So, I'm not really positive about moving to github in these conditions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I guess all I can say here is that I agree with everything you said and
maybe the only "issue" is that github was seen/expected/presented/sold
as the bug magic replacement for everything that was going to make it
all better and we'd be able to produce new standards in a few months. Of
course, it doesn't do that at all -- we all still have to do the real
hard work and github can help with a portion of it. From my point of
view, it helps with (i) track things we agreed to do or change, (ii)
accept implementation of those changes, (iii) review the implemented
changes. It is not far off to be able to (iv) automate testing that
changes did not break the document build, (v) automate publish the
latest cutting edge document where everyone can see it*, and (vi)
automate publishing to the IVOA doc repo under some condition (maybe
something like tagging the repo as WD-Foo-1.1-20191225).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
One addition to point (i) here: Github issues and pull requests are also
well-suited to discuss and agree on changes and extensions of the
standard. One of the goals of the Github transition was to make this
process more transparent and reproducible.</pre>
</blockquote>
I strongly disagree there. This is what was the decision of the TCG
in the face to face meeting before Groningen interop<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<ul>
<li> <span style="background-color: transparent;">Document
process in github -- discuss here - review and more open
discussion in Sunday AM session</span>
<ul>
<li> <span style="background-color: transparent;">proposal:
WG chair and vice chair are admins of the repo; they
give document editors read-write permission -- then only
chair(s) and editors can merge pull requests</span>
</li>
<li> <span style="background-color: transparent;">proposal:
a team/group made up of TCG (all? chair & vie-chair)
will have permission to create new repositories</span>
</li>
<li> <span style="background-color: transparent;">we do
need to assign a license to each repo (proposal: </span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</a><span
style="background-color: transparent;"> -- need exec
approval and something should end up inside the docs)</span>
</li>
<li> <em>Summary from discussion:</em>
</li>
<li>
<ul>
<li> <span style="background-color: transparent;"> <em>TCG
has agreed that we will move the development of
standards documents from volute (kindly hosted by
GAVO) to github</em> </span>
</li>
<li> <span style="background-color: transparent;"> <em>TCG
chair/vice-chair will manage permissions and
create repositories for standards (1 repository
per document)</em> </span>
</li>
<li> <span style="background-color: transparent;"> <em>WG
chair/vice-chair will admin and manage permissions
on a set of repositories (~10)</em> </span>
</li>
<li> <span style="background-color: transparent;"> <em>WG
chair/vice-chair and specified document editors
will have write permission (to merge changes)</em>
</span>
</li>
<li> <span style="background-color: transparent;"> <em>details
to be demonstrated at Sunday AM session</em> </span>
</li>
<li> <em><span style="background-color: transparent;">TCG
recommends that all documents be licensed under
the Creative Commons Attribution </span><a
rel="nofollow"
href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/edit/IVOA/ShareAlike?topicparent=IVOA.IvoaExecMeetingFM87;nowysiwyg=0"
title="ShareAlike (this topic does not yet exist;
you can create it)">ShareAlike</a><span
style="background-color: transparent;"> (</span><a
target="_top"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</a><span
style="background-color: transparent;">) license:
</span><a rel="nofollow"
href="https://wiki.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/edit/IVOA/DocStd?topicparent=IVOA.IvoaExecMeetingFM87;nowysiwyg=0"
title="DocStd (this topic does not yet exist; you
can create it)">DocStd</a><span
style="background-color: transparent;">change</span></em>
</li>
<li> <em><span style="background-color: transparent;"><strong>ACTION:
</strong>PD/JE: Exec review decision when stable
of the doc license choice</span></em>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
This looks like a practical managment enhancment procedure and NOT
like a fully new specification document philosophy. <br>
<br>
Regarding the authorship of specifications and the discussion among
authors :<br>
<br>
Specifications are not "open code", they don't have to be managed
the same, they are more like scientific papers.<br>
<br>
Will authors of scientific papers in general be happy to expose
their discussions openly from scratch ?<br>
<br>
The discussion in Working group, TCG, votes by TCG and Exec are
similar to a review process. <br>
<br>
What is proposed below is making the authors role disappear. Only
editor and IVOA(overall?) community is left.<br>
<br>
I don't think we have to go to this direction.<br>
<br>
regards<br>
François<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0ee32c47-15e3-d0e6-ce04-65b066d8a337@aip.de">
<pre wrap=""> So, the idea is in my opinion
*not* to agree on a change behind closed doors, but to use the Github
tools (issues, PRs) to find an agreement, to enable others to follow and
contribute to this process, and to have a public log of it for later
reference.
There is no need to "restrict" some part of the development process to
the authors. On contrary, the "magic" of Github is exactly that
transparency. And this will pay off in the long term.
Best regards
Ole
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>