Use absolute issue links and link open-question issues

README.md

@@ -41,11 +41,11 @@ Pick the route that matches what you have to say:
 
 | You want to… | Do this |
 | :--- | :--- |
-| Flag something unclear, wrong, or missing | [Open a **Comment**](../../issues/new?template=comment.yml) |
-| Propose specific normative wording | [Open a **Change request**](../../issues/new?template=change-request.yml), or send a pull request against `spec/openproposal-3.0.md` |
+| Flag something unclear, wrong, or missing | [Open a **Comment**](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/new?template=comment.yml) |
+| Propose specific normative wording | [Open a **Change request**](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/new?template=change-request.yml), or send a pull request against `spec/openproposal-3.0.md` |
 | Answer one of the 7 open questions | Comment on that question's [tracking issue](docs/open-questions.md) |
-| Report what happened when you tried to implement it | [Open **Implementation feedback**](../../issues/new?template=implementation-feedback.yml) |
-| Ask a question rather than raise an issue | Use [Discussions](../../discussions) |
+| Report what happened when you tried to implement it | [Open **Implementation feedback**](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/new?template=implementation-feedback.yml) |
+| Ask a question rather than raise an issue | Use [Discussions](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/discussions) |
 
 Every comment filed during the comment period gets a written disposition —
 accepted, accepted with modification, rejected with reason, or deferred — logged

docs/open-questions.md

@@ -3,15 +3,15 @@
 The draft asks seven questions it does not answer. These are the highest-value
 places to comment, because the working group is genuinely undecided.
 
-Each gets its own tracking issue when the comment period opens. **Maintainers:
-file these seven issues with the `open-question` label and fill the links
-below.**
+Each has its own tracking issue, labelled
+[`open-question`](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues?q=label%3Aopen-question).
+Answer on the issue.
 
 ---
 
 ### OQ-1 — Does per-field mutability belong in 3.0?
 
-**Issue:** `TBD`  ·  **Spec:** § 3, § 5
+**Issue:** [#2](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/2)  ·  **Spec:** § 3, § 5
 
 Sections 3 and 5 make composition part of the object: the seller declares an
 option space, and the buyer resolves inside it without a round trip. The
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ whether resolving inside one is worth the modelling cost.
 
 ### OQ-2 — Do seller catalogs (`catalog_ref`) belong in 3.0?
 
-**Issue:** `TBD`  ·  **Spec:** § 2.2
+**Issue:** [#3](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/3)  ·  **Spec:** § 2.2
 
 Or should the object stay fully inline until a later version? `catalog_ref`
 buys compactness across a large shelf at the cost of a resolution step during
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ that.
 
 ### OQ-3 — Cross-channel guarantee comparability is unsolved
 
-**Issue:** `TBD`  ·  **Spec:** § 5.7
+**Issue:** [#4](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/4)  ·  **Spec:** § 5.7
 
 Once one line item guarantees `viewable_rate` and another `completion_rate`,
 there is no normalised way for a buying agent to compare or optimise across
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ deferred.
 
 ### OQ-4 — The format registry has no entries for `audio/*`, `ctv/*` or `dooh/*`
 
-**Issue:** `TBD`  ·  **Spec:** § 5.4
+**Issue:** [#5](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/5)  ·  **Spec:** § 5.4
 
 `specs` delegates to a registry that cannot currently answer for half the
 declared channels. Either the registry is extended before 3.0 ratifies, or the
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ proposed fallback behaviour.
 
 ### OQ-5 — Is a `min_line_items` field needed?
 
-**Issue:** `TBD`  ·  **Spec:** § 2, § 4
+**Issue:** [#6](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/6)  ·  **Spec:** § 2, § 4
 
 The draft makes proposals subsettable unless binding terms mandate linked
 execution. Does the proposal need an explicit `min_line_items` to require a
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ be bought whole, and whether "binding terms" is a precise enough hook.
 
 ### OQ-6 — Should `payment_terms` and `invoicing_party` be catalog references?
 
-**Issue:** `TBD`  ·  **Spec:** § 5.10
+**Issue:** [#7](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/7)  ·  **Spec:** § 5.10
 
 Rather than repeated on every line item, given they are usually identical across
 a seller's shelf. Note this is in tension with the no-inheritance rule (§ 2) —
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ property).
 
 ### OQ-7 — `environments[]` needs validation against real inventory
 
-**Issue:** `TBD`  ·  **Spec:** § 5.2
+**Issue:** [#8](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/8)  ·  **Spec:** § 5.2
 
 The enum — `web_desktop`, `web_mobile`, `app_mobile`, `ctv`, `dooh`,
 `audio_streaming` — is proposed, not derived from implementation experience.
@@ -107,6 +107,6 @@ reporting what does not fit.
 ## Not on this list but worth saying
 
 If you think the draft has a problem it has not asked about, file it as a
-[Comment](../../../issues/new?template=comment.yml) or a
-[Change request](../../../issues/new?template=change-request.yml). The seven
+[Comment](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/new?template=comment.yml) or a
+[Change request](https://github.com/IABTechLab/OpenProposal/issues/new?template=change-request.yml). The seven
 above are where we know we are undecided, not the limit of what we will consider.