Dear Rich
OK, that makes sense. I would be happy with such a procedure. My concern, as
you understood, was with the "quality control" i.e. the outcome of the
discussion equals what has been done to the document, since it's easy to
make mistakes. On the other hand, we would not have to do this if CF had
enough resources invested in it.
Best wishes and thanks
Jonathan
> If we were using github right now, I would fork the CF repository
> (make a copy of the document on my own github account), add the text
> associated with the ticket I submitted that was approved two years ago
> (http://kitt.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/93) and then submit a pull request.
>
> > if volunteers could do it (as Mark Hedley suggested quite a while ago) but
> > there would still be the need for quality-control - someone would have to
> > take responsibility for checking that the change was as agreed.
>
> The people with authority to make changes to the official document
> (maybe this would still just be Jeff Painter, but could be expanded to
> include some other qualified/approved folks) could take a look at the
> document *with changes already made* and if the change was as agreed
> (really did address a specific issue/ticket), they could just click a
> button and it would get merged into the official draft CF 1.7
> document.
>
> And if it doesn't look good, a dialog can take place about what needs
> to be changed, and the pull request can be modified by the submitter
> until it's ready to go. And again, the committer just needs to click
> a button to merge.
>
> I think not only helps spread the workload, but also helps the
> community feel more engaged in the process.
Received on Wed Sep 24 2014 - 09:48:18 BST
