Post CG closure processes
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
documentation
- Dominant language
- HTML
- Stars
- 9
- Forks
- 4
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Discussing with @tidoust his experience closing down the Multi-device timing CG, a few things that might be worth at least documenting:
- the CG chose to run an FSA on its spec in case it's picked up later; that may be a pattern to investigate & document
- what should happen to a a CG repo when it closes? (readme update, spec update if a spec, archival, issues, etc)
- If the repo is under administrative control of W3C but hosts work that can continue outside the CG (e.g. open source code), can it be transferred to a different org and how?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the closure experience from the Multi-device timing CG referenced in the issue, then investigate the FSA pattern and the handling of repositories, specifications, issues, archival, and transferable open-source work when a CG closes. Done means documenting practical post-closure guidance, including whether administrative transfer is possible and how it should work.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100