I am a great believer in fostering the illusion of progress. So, even though I know the topic is not one that gets Council members' pulses racing, I crave a few moments of their attention in the matter of the changes needed to chap 23. You may recall that one cmsmcq raised a number of tickets a month or so ago , most of which spawned some heated debate, none of which has yet been resolved although I have identified some (marked Green for Go) where I think some minor changes to wording would allow them to be closed. I take the liberty of summarizing what I believe to be the state of play, but by all means review and shout if I have overlooked something. https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1596 : proposed resolution is to create a new <empty/> element. No-one has reacted to this (comparatively simple) proposal yet. https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1591 : (GREEN) : revised wording proposed https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1590 : (GREEN) : revised wording proposed https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1589 : agreed that there is a stylesheets issue (https://github.com/TEIC/Stylesheets/issues/235) ; necessary wording changes not yet clear https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1588 : is this resolved by wording changes proposed for 1587 ? https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1587 : (GREEN) : revised wording proposed https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1586 : lots of heat but little light as yet My question today is: shall I go ahead and just implement the changes proposed by the green tickets ?
Personally, I have not gotten to wrestle with most of these tickets yet, and would appreciate the chance to do so before you implement any significant changes that you green-lighted. I realize it has been nearly a week, so I do apologize. (I've been busy. :-)
-- Syd Bauman, EMT-Paramedic Senior XML Programmer/Analyst Northeastern University Women Writers Project s.bauman@northeastern.edu or Syd_Bauman@alumni.Brown.edu
I scanned through and either agreed with what I saw with a thumbs up, or added a comment when I thought it was necessary. I have to admit that reading through the walls of text produced on these tickets seems impossible. The interconnections between the various tickets are not helpful either. This is not working and clearly important issues are at stake here. If we need to have the council really consider all that is happening there, then a summary or even a symposium, like Elisa offered at some point, will be necessary. I am certainly keen on further discussing terms such as conformance, clean/unclean (which I find bad), and conformant/non-conformant, but I'm unsure about the right way of proceeding so that 1) we make real progress, 2) the whole council can participate, 3) it's not too easy to lose track or get lost in text. But maybe the F2F is the only time when this is somewhat possible. Raff On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Syd Bauman <s.bauman@northeastern.edu> wrote:
I am with Raff - these tickets are very difficult to get through as they are discussing thorny issues in a threaded format - not conducive to clarity. At the council call, we agreed to read through by 4/6 in order to respond to Lou on whether to fix the Green tickets. I agree with the changes proposed for 1587, 1590 and 1591. --elli [Elli Mylonas Senior Digital Humanities Librarian and Center for Digital Scholarship University Library Brown University library.brown.edu/cds] On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Raffaele Viglianti < raffaeleviglianti@gmail.com> wrote:
participants (4)
-
Lou Burnard -
Mylonas, Elli -
Raffaele Viglianti -
Syd Bauman