Jonathan,
The good thing about the git "pull request" method of updating
CF-conventions would be that someone can fork the repository (make
their own copy of the document, in this case), make the edits related
to their issue, and then submit a "pull request" to the person with
authority to update the master document.
The advantage is that the person with responsibility for the whole
does not have to make all the edits themselves -- yet they can easily
see and review how the edits look in a revised copy, and these can be
accepted or discussed further with the community.
So basically best of both worlds: easier for the community to
contribute, and less work for the person with responsibility to
maintain the master.
-Rich
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Jonathan Gregory
<j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Mark, Rich, Bryan et al.
>
> I am definitely in favour of having a new version too, but I am nervous about
> involving lots of people in what is essentially the editorial task of updating
> the document. When many people revise bits of a document, especially if they
> have not worked on it before, there is the possibility of inconsistency. You
> still need someone to take responsibility for the whole.
>
> The main reason for slow progress in CF discussions is the limitation on brain-
> power resources, not the technology for deploying those resources, I think. The
> number of people who can make time to follow our detailed and difficult
> discussions is understandably limited. None of us has it as a day-job!
> However it would be interesting to know more about how different technology
> from trac would make the task easier.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
Received on Mon Sep 30 2013 - 08:30:49 BST
