Use issues to track NB comments in response to ballots.
Rules:
- Most meeting discussion goes on the wiki, not the GitHub issue.
- GitHub issue comments: When a group has discussed a paper or NB comment, that group’s chair adds a comment to the corresponding GitHub issue reading something like: “LEWG in Belfast: Needs more discussion.” or “EWG in Belfast: Approved X.” or “SG99 in Belfast: Recommend to reject.” Adding a link to the wiki page is appreciated. As per ISO guidance, do not quote discussion details. Quoting numeric poll results is far less important than clearly stating the net outcome.
- Study Groups "recommend" dispositions and forward to LEWG/EWG. LEWG, EWG, LWG, and CWG as well as the editors can "reject", in which case the issue should be closed. LWG, CWG, and the editors "accept" or "reject".
- GitHub issue labels: When your group is done with an issue, de-assign your group’s label and, if it was not rejected, assign the label(s) of the next group(s) to look at the paper. (SGs never reject, they always progress.) If a paper needs revision and then needs to come back to your group, leave your group's label. In short, every open issue should have at least one group label.
- GitHub issue closing: If an issue was rejected for good, close the issue. Do not change any labels, so that we can discover which group rejected the proposal.