Thanks for starting this debate: a useful corollary to the decision to go GitHub. I propose that “CD Editor” becomes plural, and we start having a team. I have no immediate intention of stepping down, but Michael’s Post has made me realise how ad hominem the current system is. Presumably the editors should essentially (I.e. apart from sysadmins) be those with push rights to this repository.
A change log would be necessary. I wonder (no real views either way - what do those with experience of larger/longer lasting projects think) whether a simple text (probably actually HTML) file will suffice. James Sent from my iPhone On 29 Apr 2018, at 09:42, Michael Kohlhase <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear all, as you know, we have been reorganizing the OpenMath resources and web site as multiple repositories at [1] In particular we have the new CDs repository [2], which has the CD resources and feeds the CD web site [3] The idea is that [2] should facilitate CD development by providing public source access, issues, pull requests, and notifications. Now, the first outside user (Jacob Beal) has taken advantage of this first by raising an issue [4], and then providing a pull request [5] which is currently being discussed. In a nutshell the proposal is to add negated binary connectives nor, nand, and nxor to logic1.ocd. So far so good, but this raises the question of how the CD approval process should be organized (technically). The OpenMath Standard [6] only says > 4.5 Content Dictionaries Reviewing Process > The OpenMath Society is responsible for implementing a review and referee > process to assess the accuracy of the mathematical content of Content > Dictionaries. > The status (see CDStatus) and/or the version number (see CDVersion ) of a > Content | > Dictionary may change as a result of this review process. which leaves the process open and the OpenMath Society delegates the responsibility to its CD Editor (James Davenport). James and I have started discussing the technical process of approving CD revisions. We propose that we make the GitHub-supported process we have started with Jacob's proposal the standard and document it in the README of [2]. Here is what we think the process should be. 1. An extension proposal is made via a GitHub issue at [2] and discussed there. 2. The discussion is concretized into a pull request (PR) to [2] that is discussed further on the PR (including inline comments) until all issues are resolved. 3. James explicitly approves the PR and someone with push rights merges it. 4. the changes are announced and added to a changelog. We would like your input on this proposal (in particular what we should do for 4.) James & Michael [1] https://github.com/OpenMath [2] https://github.com/OpenMath/CDs [3] http://openmath.org/cd/ [4] https://github.com/OpenMath/CDs/issues/32 [5] https://github.com/OpenMath/CDs/pull/34 [6] http://www.openmath.org/standard/om20-2017-07-22/omstd20.html#cdapprove [7] -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Michael Kohlhase, http://kwarc.info/kohlhase, skype: mibein42 Professur für Wissensrepräsentation & -verarbeitung Informatik, FAU Erlangen Nürnberg, Martensstr. 3, D-91058 Erlangen, Room 11.139, tel/fax: (49) 9131-85-64052/55, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://mailman.openmath.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/om
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.openmath.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/om
