-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Individual area #15
Individual area #15
Conversation
charter.html
Outdated
href=https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/>W3C Community | ||
Contributor License Agreement (CLA)</a>. The proposal should also have a notice | ||
on the `README.md` file at its base or on the document itself which clearly | ||
states "This document is an individual draft proposal. It and does not represent a work item of the Private Advertising Technology |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- I'm not sure how the second sentence is supposed to be structured ("It and does not"). 2) Not sure why we're mentioning the (TBC) PATWG? 3) Is "work item" defined somewhere? I'm not opposed to saying it's not one, just perhaps you really mean "this proposal has not been officially adopted by the PATCG" or something.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks. I believe the WG thing was part of the original PR and then I mis-edited. I adopted your suggested text.
Would we open issues for every individual draft in the same repo? Maybe just using a prefix in the issue title, or labels for an issue, so that we can filter issues to a particular individual draft. |
Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@gmail.com>
This will be one draft per repo. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Here is an alternate proposal that just creates an individual space, with both addition and removal at the discretion of the chairs. I changed this from consensus to remove because it seems weird to have the chairs have discretion to adopt but not to remove and the primary reason for removal will be if it's just clearly out of scope.
I see that I've also removed the proposed principles for adoption. Those seem potentially reasonable but belong in another PR.