W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

A note about the issues list and editorial workflow

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:53:59 +0200
Message-Id: <88F003E5-29D8-4749-BE58-3661FA2B90F9@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
We've made a slight adjustment to the workflow for issues to help identify their various states.

As a reminder, we classify issues as either 'design', where WG consensus is needed, or 'editorial', where it's judged to be at the discretion of the editors. Editorial issues can and are elevated to design issues if they're contentious.

Basically, the life cycle for a design issue is now:

1. Under Discussion

The issue needs discussion to move towards consensus. These issues have no scheduled milestone, and are listed at:
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/17

2. Proposal Made

There has been a proposal that looks to have consensus, but it has not been incorporated into the drafts yet. These issues have a scheduled milestone but are still open, and are listed at:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/13

3. Proposal Incorporated

The proposal has been incorporated into a draft. These issues are marked with the state 'incorporated' and are listed at:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/15

4. Proposal Verified

The incorporated proposal has been accepted by the WG. These issues are marked with the state 'fixed'.

This isn't perfect, but we believe it's better than our previous process, where the states weren't so explicit. One thing to note is that the editors can make proposals directly in the drafts (skipping state #2), which we then either verify or push back to state #1.

We'll see how this works over the next set of drafts or two and adjust as necessary.

Thanks,

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 12:54:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:23 GMT