Add Stages.md, revise Working Mode to include #222
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for putting this up!
For this to become part of our set of policy documents, it needs to read like one. At the point where something is policy, it's already agreed that we need to solve the problem and it's also no longer a proposal.
I think that mainly means that a lot of text here can be removed, though perhaps we want to keep some of it in some fashion as an appendix?
I think I'd also like to explicitly invite @whatwg/editors to review this. They are always welcome to review SG PRs, but this one in particular will have some impact on them.
Co-authored-by: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
|
Thanks, @annevk . I edited again with an eye to stating it as policy, not proposal - you were completely correct - and I think it's much better now. I didn't feel like I cut anything important enough to keep it in the appendix (it's still there for historical interest in the meta issue.) |
Co-authored-by: Jeremy Roman <jeremy@jeremyroman.com>
| * Stage level is tracked with labels on issues in the relevant specifications — “stage 0”, “stage 1”, etc. | ||
| * Stage labels (other than stage 0) should only be added by browser engine representatives, or by Editors on the relevant specification, after showing the necessary support for a level. | ||
| * **Advancing stages** | ||
| * The feature champion should bring the proposal to the WHATWG to advance to the next stage by setting an “Agenda+” label on the tracking issue, and showing up to (or ensuring someone will show up to) the next triage meeting to discuss. Advancing to a new stage requires support for the decision by at least two implementers (via their browser engine representatives), and there should not be any strong implementer objections ([per the working mode](https://whatwg.org/working-mode#additions)). This support can also be gathered in any public manner, e.g. GitHub issue comments, triage meetings, etc. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The first sentence about agenda+ and triage meetings seems to contradict the last sentence about gathering support in any manner. Maybe it can be deleted?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although I agree the last sentence is not entirely necessary, it's not contradictory - the first sentence is about "how do you bring the proposal to the group", the last sentence is "how do you demonstrate support from implementers".
Co-authored-by: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
Co-authored-by: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
Co-authored-by: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
Co-authored-by: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
Remove subtitle, add <dfn>s, THEAD structure
|
Thanks for all the feedback, @domenic ! Addressed (nearly) everything. |
|
2 approvals, open for several weeks - merging. |
See also prior discussion in #222. Closes whatwg/meta#290. Co-authored-by: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> Co-authored-by: Jeremy Roman <jeremy@jeremyroman.com> Co-authored-by: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
This moves the proposal for Stages from whatwg/meta#290 to a Markdown file in SG, and revises the Working Mode document to include it. Note that I tweaked some language slightly, and replaced a "stages review needed" label mention with our current "agenda+" label.