I agree with what has been said about googledocs, but we should remember that they are not, at present, universally accessible and so we should always have alternatives.
A google doc is also essentially ephemeral— it is not a good place to record history, or the ability to roll back changes, etc. We should use git+gitHub for what it is good for. Granted, these are tools designed for code, not text documents, but when you are working with a plain text markup language, they really do work well. In fact, being able to use them with a version control system is one of the primary motivations to using text-based markup. The CF standard is a pretty mature document. Most of the changes will be small, and well suited to the “diff” based approach of gitHub. So we should use gitHub for those changes. Occasionally we may have a large new feature ( like the recent geometries one ). If the primary authors of such a section find it more productive to develop the first draft in google docs (or whatever they want), fine. But it should go into a PR once there is a draft proposal. -CHB -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/130#issuecomment-393192061
