Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Tidy up; add Focus labels by default #953

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Tidy up; add Focus labels by default #953

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
eee0a83
Tidy up; add Focus labels by default
rhiaro May 6, 2024
8736424
Issue template: fix bits dropped due to lazy copypaste
rhiaro May 6, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
32 changes: 21 additions & 11 deletions .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/005-early-design-review.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: Early design review
about: 'If you''d like the TAG to offer thoughts and guidance on an early-stage design
direction '
title: ''
labels: 'Progress: untriaged, Review type: early review'
labels: 'Progress: untriaged, Review type: early review, Focus: API Design (pending), Focus: Accessibility (pending), Focus: Internationalization (pending), Focus: Web architecture (pending), Focus: Security (pending), Focus: Privacy (pending)'
assignees: ''

---
Expand All @@ -15,26 +15,34 @@ I'm requesting a TAG review of [feature name].
[One paragraph summary of idea, ideally copy-pasted from Explainer introduction]

- Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): [url]
- User research: [url to public summary/results of research]
- Security and Privacy self-review²: [url]
- GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): [url]
- [ ] We have reviewed the TAG's [Web Platform Design Principles](https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/)

**Discussion about the work:**

- User research: [url to public summary/results of research]
- Tests: [url] | [wpt folder(s), if available]
- Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder³ (e.g. developers, implementers, civil society) support, review or discussion of this specification:
- Chromium comments: [url]
- Mozilla comments: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/NNN
- WebKit comments: https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/NNN
- Etc.
- Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design:

**Where / by whom the work is being done:**

- GitHub repo: [url]
- Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
- [name] ([github username]), [organization/s] (repeat as necessary, we recommend including group chairs and editors in this list)
- Organization/project driving the design: [organization and/or project name]
- External status/issue trackers for this feature (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status):

Further details:

- [ ] I have reviewed the TAG's [Web Platform Design Principles](https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/)
- The group where the incubation/design work on this is being done (or is intended to be done in the future):
- The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done ("unknown" if not known):
- Existing major pieces of multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this design:
- Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design:
- This work is being funded by:

You should also know that...
**You should also know that:**

[please tell us anything you think is relevant to this review]
- [please tell us anything else you think is relevant to this review]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAREFULLY READ AND DELETE CONTENT BELOW THIS LINE BEFORE SUBMITTING
Expand All @@ -47,3 +55,5 @@ In particular:
¹ For background, see our [explanation of how to write a good explainer](https://tag.w3.org/explainers/). We recommend the explainer to be in [Markdown](https://github.github.com/gfm/).

² Even for early-stage ideas, a Security and Privacy questionnaire helps us understand potential security and privacy issues and mitigations for your design, and can save us asking redundant questions. See https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/.

³ For your own organization, you can simply state the organization's position instead of linking to it. Chromium doesn't have a standards-positions repository and [prefers](https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:docs/standards/positions/GoogleChrome/README.md) to use comments from the teams that maintain the relevant area of their codebase.
42 changes: 22 additions & 20 deletions .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/010-specification-review.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: Specification review
about: If you want the TAG to review a specification for Web technology that you're
working on
title: ''
labels: 'Progress: untriaged'
labels: 'Progress: untriaged, Focus: API Design (pending), Focus: Accessibility (pending), Focus: Internationalization (pending), Focus: Web architecture (pending), Focus: Security (pending), Focus: Privacy (pending)'
assignees: ''

---
Expand All @@ -15,43 +15,45 @@ I'm requesting a TAG review of [feature name].
[One paragraph summary of idea, ideally copy-pasted from Explainer introduction]

- Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): [url]
- Specification URL: [spec url]
- Tests: [wpt folder(s), if available]
- User research: [url to public summary/results of research]
- Security and Privacy self-review²: [url]
- GitHub repo (if you prefer feedback filed there): [url]
- Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
- [name] ([github username]), [organization/s] (repeat as necessary, we recommend including group chairs and editors in this list)
- Organization(s)/project(s) driving the specification: [organization and/or project name]
- Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder (e.g. developers, implementers, civil society) support, review or discussion of this specification:
- [ ] We have reviewed the TAG's [Web Platform Design Principles](https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/)

**Discussion about the work:**

- User research: [url to public summary/results of research]
- Tests: [url] | [wpt folder(s), if available]
- Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder³ (e.g. developers, implementers, civil society) support, review or discussion of this specification:
- Chromium comments: [url]
- Mozilla comments: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/NNN
- WebKit comments: https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/NNN
- Etc.
- External status/issue trackers for this specification (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status):
- Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this design:

Further details:
**Where / by whom the work is being done:**

- [ ] I have reviewed the TAG's [Web Platform Design Principles](https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/)
- Relevant time constraints or deadlines: [please provide]
- The group where the work on this specification is currently being done:
- The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done (if current group is a community group or other incubation venue):
- Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification:
- GitHub repo: [url]
- Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
- [name] ([github username]), [organization/s] (repeat as necessary, we recommend including group chairs and editors in this list)
- Organization/project driving the design: [organization and/or project name]
- External status/issue trackers for this feature (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status):
- The group where the incubation/design work on this is being done (or is intended to be done in the future):
- The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done ("unknown" if not known):
- This work is being funded by:

You should also know that...
**You should also know that:**

[please tell us anything you think is relevant to this review]
- [please tell us anything else you think is relevant to this review]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAREFULLY READ AND DELETE CONTENT BELOW THIS LINE BEFORE SUBMITTING

Please preview the issue and check that the links work before submitting.

In particular, if anything links to a URL which requires authentication (e.g. Google document), please make sure anyone with the link can access the document. We would prefer fully public documents though, since we work in the open.
In particular:
* if anything links to a URL which requires authentication (e.g. Google document), please make sure anyone with the link can access the document. We would prefer public documents though, since we work in the open.

¹ We require an explainer to give the relevant context for the spec review, even if the spec has some background information. For background, see our [explanation of how to write a good explainer](https://tag.w3.org/explainers/). We recommend the explainer to be in [Markdown](https://github.github.com/gfm/).

² A Security and Privacy questionnaire helps us understand potential security and privacy issues and mitigations for your design, and can save us asking redundant questions. See https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/.

³ For your own organization, you can simply state the organization's position instead of linking to it. Chromium doesn't have a standards-positions repository and [prefers](https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:docs/standards/positions/GoogleChrome/README.md) to use comments from the teams that maintain the relevant area of their codebase.
³ For your own organization, you can simply state the organization's position instead of linking to it. Chromium doesn't have a standards-positions repository and [prefers](https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:docs/standards/positions/GoogleChrome/README.md) to use comments from the teams that maintain the relevant area of their codebase.