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.

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

fix typos & grammar. #408

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

fix typos & grammar. #408

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

bskrksyp9
Copy link

Used appropriate words in sentence and corrected few spellings.

Used appropriate words in sentence and corrected few spellings.
GOVERNANCE.md Outdated
@@ -123,12 +123,12 @@ Beckn protocol specification adopts a set of design principles that must be adhe


### Licensing
Beckn protocol is currently covered under a Creative Commons License. Just like the design principles, the licensing also may change basis the extent of adoption by the community. The Core Working Group must:
Beckn protocol is currently covered under a Creative Commons License. Just like the design principles, the licensing also may change the basis of the extent of adoption by the community. The Core Working Group must:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would suggest changing this to "the license of Beckn protocol speification may change in the future depending on the scale of its adoption by the community.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, added you may review it


- Clearly define what is allowed and not allowed as per the licensing rules in practical implementation scenarios
- Gather feedback from the ecosystem around issues faced by implementors due to the licensing
- Provide solutions to overcome problems around licensing
- If all of the above fail to achieve outomes, also consider changing the license to make the protocol more flexible without loss of interoperability
- If all of the above fail to achieve outcomes, also consider changing the license to make the protocol more flexible without loss of interoperability
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Noted. Thank you.

@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ Each WG will have at least one Core Committer. The objective of a core committer

### Working Group Members

Anyone can send a request to be added to the WG to attend meetings and weigh in with opinions about any decision or through mails. To become part of a WG, one must send an email to the WG Admin. WG members can participate in discussions on Issues and Pull Requests, and respond to comments in the discussion forums. However, the approval of a working group member will not be decisiove in merging PRs to the specification.
Anyone can send a request to be added to the WG to attend meetings and weigh in with opinions about any decision or through mails. To become part of a WG, one must send an email to the WG Admin. WG members can participate in discussions on Issues and Pull Requests, and respond to comments in the discussion forums. However, the approval of a working group member will not be decisive in merging PRs to the specification.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Noted. Thank you.

@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ The specification will evolve over time. Changes may be made when any of the fol

# Specification Evolution Guidelines

Any change made to specification must happen via a rigourous and comprehensive review mechanism. The review broadly requires the core committers to apply each of the design principles on the proposed change and submit an objective response to the proposer(s).
Any change made to specification must happen via a rigorous and comprehensive review mechanism. The review broadly requires the core committers to apply each of the design principles on the proposed change and submit an objective response to the proposer(s).
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Noted. Thank you.

@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ Spec changes should be approved by a majority of the committers. Approval can be

All new features have a lifecycle starting from a proposal to a protocol standard. All new features to the specification must start with a status as “proposed”. Upon review, the CWG will decide to move forward with a discussion on the change and then move it to a “draft” status. If the feature is considered to become part of the specification, it will be moved to the “recommended” status. And if the feature is widely accepted and adopted by the ecosystem, then it will be moved to a “required” status after which it will become part of the core specification.

All proposals to the specification are submitted as namespaced properties as mentioned in CONTRIBUTIONS.md. The working group has the responsibility of reviewing these proposals and classify them accordingly as draft, recommended, required or not-recommended features. Once classified, the WGs must rename the namespace with the appropriate feature stage component after review.
All proposals to the specification are submitted as namespaced properties as mentioned in CONTRIBUTIONS.md. The working group has the responsibility of reviewing these proposals and classifying them accordingly as draft, recommended, required or not-recommended features. Once classified, the WGs must rename the namespace with the appropriate feature stage component after review.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Noted. Thank you.

@ravi-prakash-v
Copy link
Collaborator

@bskrksyp9 Thank you for fixing the typos. Please do review my comments and update your PR accordingly.

Once again, thank you for your contributions!

change of statement as suggested in thread
@bskrksyp9
Copy link
Author

@bskrksyp9 Thank you for fixing the typos. Please do review my comments and update your PR accordingly.

Once again, thank you for your contributions!

Yes did those changes as you suggested..

@bskrksyp9 bskrksyp9 marked this pull request as draft August 9, 2024 04:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants