Thanks for creating this group! I would like my organization to participate more. I have a procedural comment/proposal related to this project.
Some specs like #199 and #202 went from "pull request opened" to "merged" in the span of ~a day.
I understand that both of these were viewed as "de-facto" standards, and I don't want to be seen as blocking, but it seems like even for a loose standards group like this at least some slightly more formal process - even just a "lazy consensus" of at least week or two week delay before merging specs would seem to make sense?
I think we could set up something like https://github.com/cncf/gitvote or equivalent based on a list of participating member groups, doesn't have to be heavyweight; I think having a process might even help boost engagement a bit.
Thanks for creating this group! I would like my organization to participate more. I have a procedural comment/proposal related to this project.
Some specs like #199 and #202 went from "pull request opened" to "merged" in the span of ~a day.
I understand that both of these were viewed as "de-facto" standards, and I don't want to be seen as blocking, but it seems like even for a loose standards group like this at least some slightly more formal process - even just a "lazy consensus" of at least week or two week delay before merging specs would seem to make sense?
I think we could set up something like https://github.com/cncf/gitvote or equivalent based on a list of participating member groups, doesn't have to be heavyweight; I think having a process might even help boost engagement a bit.