Probably a good discussion topic for the OpenMath workshop. Michael
On 30.05.18 17:34, Michael Kohlhase wrote: > > Dear James, dear all, > > On 29.04.18 11:15, James Davenport wrote: >> 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 second that, that would get us around the > "single-point-of-failure/delay" problem. >> 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. > I would suggest a new "team" of CD Editors at the GithHub level, and > have three editors and James as Editor-in-chief. a >> A change log would be necessary. > I think the GitHub log should be sufficient, if people give good > commit messages. > > Michael >> 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 <michael.kohlh...@fau.de >> <mailto:michael.kohlh...@fau.de>> 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, michael.kohlh...@fau.de >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Om mailing list >>> Om@openmath.org <mailto:Om@openmath.org> >>> http://mailman.openmath.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/om > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, michael.kohlh...@fau.de > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, michael.kohlh...@fau.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list Om@openmath.org http://mailman.openmath.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/om
