What’s the alternative? That at least N projects cooperate and agree on a common design before they do the implementation? (Then maybe someone can complain about design-by-committee.)
I'm not claiming these tools are the best, or anything. Just that existing standards can work very well, and are a good foundation to build up UIs or whatever; rather than attempting to design something perfect from scratch.
My fork of Artemis, patched for Python3: http://www.chriswarbo.net/git/artemis
Emacs config to trigger message-mode when emacsclient is invoked as EDITOR on an Artemis issue: http://www.chriswarbo.net/git/warbo-emacs-d/git/branches/mas...
An example of HTML rendered from Artemis issues: http://www.chriswarbo.net/git/nix-config/issues/threads.html
That would be ideal, yes. You should solicit comments from the greater community before setting the format in stone. But the very minimum would be to build on existing attempts at issues-in-git like [0] instead of reinventing the wheel unless you have a very very very good reason.
The alternative to that would be the git project itself coming up with an implementation. They have reasonable experience working with the Kernel, and the creation of git itself seems to have worked reasonably well -- although I'm not sure I would want to use something Linus considers ergonomic :)
Without such a group you might just send a few emails to mailing list, get shrugs about how that plan “looks good” with little real interest, and then have to discuss this big plan in every future patch series that incrementally builds such a thing into Git itself. Mostly why such code should be incorporated and how it will pay off when it’s all ready.
The Git tool itself—and the project by extension—is per now very unopinioated about whole-project solutions like this. The workflow that they themselves use is very loosely coupled and pretty much needs bespoke scripting by individual contributors, which I guess is telling in itself.
If someone wanted to come along and define a way to embed Fossil wikis/issues as a COB then they could be replicated on the Radicle network and it's then up to application developers to load and interpret that data.
I think this is cool because it essentially allows developers to extend the Radicle ecosystem easily and define new workflows! However, that does not avoid our XKCD problem stated above ;P But hey, sometimes that's the beauty of these things -- we're given the power to define our own workflows and not locked into something everyone complains about coughGitHub branches PR flowcough
