PR #277: Proposal to update GTFS Schedule to RFC 2119

[scott]

Please see PR #277 to update GTFS Schedule to RFC 2119. Looking forward to reviews. 

Thanks
Scott

[Andrew Byrd]

Hello,

I definitely support efforts to use more standardized language in these specifications, thanks. 

One meta-comment though: For messages like this announcing proposals, as well as the pull requests they reference, it would be very helpful to always provide a clear and concise description. Otherwise it may take each reader several minutes to determine whether this is something they can contribute to, and uncertainty may also decrease participation.

In this case, for example: “Update GTFS specification using standardized definitions of terms like MUST, SHALL, or SHOULD, following RFC 2119."

Just to clarify the sources of uncertainty on my first reading: the expression “update GTFS Schedule” seems to be referencing the data in a feed rather than the specification text, and focus on the arrival/departure times rather than everything else in GTFS. More importantly, most people won’t remember what exactly RFC 2119 is about (and really, people in the wider transportation field might not even know what an RFC is). Even after opening the RFC text it takes some reading to be certain.

Thanks,

Andrew

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GTFS Changes" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to gtfs-changes...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gtfs-changes/1af1f647-f1a0-4cb4-8968-37e7644466a5n%40googlegroups.com.

[Cristhian Hellion]

Hello Andrew,

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide your feedback, we really appreciate that. You are right, we can definitely improve the description of these types of messages going forward.

If you have any other questions or suggestions you are welcome to reach out to us at any time.

Have a great week!

—

Cristhian Hellion| en, sp, fr | Product Manager, Transit Data | MobilityData IO | mobilitydata.org

cris...@mobilitydata.org | +1 514 942 2903| Montréal, Québec, Canada

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gtfs-changes/7E2226A0-2908-4244-8679-FEEABB3F0AC2%40fastmail.net.

[scott]

Hi all,

Indeed a summary of the PR would have been useful. Noted for next time!

The PR in question, #277, to update the GTFS Schedule specification to RFC 2119 (defining keywords for requirements and recommendations via "MUST", "SHOULD", etc) has reached a stable point of feedback and revisions. As such, we will be moving forward with calling a vote in the coming days. Feel free to provide any remaining feedback in the meantime. See the complete and up-to-date changes in the "Files changed" tab on the PR, as well as a detailed description of the proposal.

Thanks!
Scott

[scott]

Hi all,

Once again we received a great round of reviews from external parties (including abyrd and aababilov) as well as from MobilityData's validator team. This is the last call for collecting feedback as we want to pass the proposal to a vote soon. 

Thanks!
Scott

[scott]

Hi all,

Voting is currently open on PR #277 to update GTFS Schedule to RFC 2119. Looking forward to your engagement.

Best,
Scott

[scott]

Hi all,

With 6 votes in favor and 0 opposed, PR #277 passes!

Big thanks to everyone involved in bringing RFC 2119 to GTFS Schedule.

Scott