Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- github_exp_9518 [2024/02/13 18:17] – sginoza
+++ github_exp_9518 [2026/02/12 05:44] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 ==== Lessons Learned ====
-  * We only used the rfced label.  Didn't know we needed the other labels added at RFCED.
   * Using Issues to mention global edits and then PRs to implement them once authors agree.
-  * We figured out how to update the header/boilerplate to be Independent Submission in markdown. (See header of the markdown file at https://github.com/rfc-editor/draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization/blob/rpc-main/draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization.md).
+  * We experimented with the header and boilerplate material for Independent Stream documents in markdown (See header of the markdown file at https://github.com/rfc-editor/draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization/blob/rpc-main/draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization.md).
 === Feedback ===
-Author feedback: The author indicated that communication was clear and easy to follow, the issues were appropriately sized, and the labels for issues were helpful.
+Author feedback: The author indicated that communication was clear and easy to follow, the issues were appropriately sized, and the labels for issues were helpful. He also noted that using GitHub was advantageous because "[i]t was easier to review changes and understand the state of the draft."  He also indicated that he "would love to end up with a pull request back to [his] repo only with the changes to the draft (not the README). But that's just a nice-to-have."
-He also noted that using GitHub was advantageous because "[i]t was easier to review changes and understand the state of the draft."  He also indicated that he "would love to end up with a pull request back to [his] repo only with the changes to the draft (not the README). But that's just a nice-to-have."
 The ISE indicated that the process could be improved: \\
 "I was a little confused as to what and when to approve stuff." \\
 "It wasn't easy to follow because I probably wasn't correctly subscribed to issues."\\
-He indicated that the issues were appropriately sized and that the labels were useful.  Overall, he didn't find the process more efficient than the current mail-based system, though he would like experiment again after discussion with the RPC.  He also noted that "this was a matter of getting used to it.  I don't want to be too harsh on github because I think some of it really is my own incompetence."
+He indicated that the issues were appropriately sized and that the labels were useful.  Overall, he didn't find the process more efficient than the current mail-based system, though he would like to experiment again after discussion with the RPC.  He also noted that "this was a matter of getting used to it.  I don't want to be too harsh on github because I think some of it really is my own incompetence."