W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: #238, was: User interface requirements for redirecting to unsafe methods

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:08:56 -0800
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <262119AD-92E1-42B2-A8B3-24C0E696336B@apple.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

On Oct 23, 2012, at 3:16 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 
> On 23/10/2012, at 7:56 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> As a matter of process, I wish I could have been notified in some more active way about the resolution when the ticket was resolved. Since it was resolved several years after I raised the issue, I was no longer monitoring the WG closely enough to notice. Had I been aware of the resolution, I likely would have spotted the error (i.e. that one of four mentions of confirmation was not addressed).
> 
> That's not our process. We use the issue tracker as a convenience (as we do the diffs, the announcements, the change logs, etc.), but ultimately if you care about a particular bit of the text, you need to track it. Hence, the Last Calls (whereupon you *did* spot the error).


Here's how things happened from my point of view, and piecing things together from the archives:
- The original email thread raising the issue appeared to reject the comment without addressing it.
- The WG gave no indication at the time that it would even take up the issue.
- The tracker ticket about this was raised months later, in response to a separate thread after the original request was ignored
- No response was ever made to the original thread that the WG would take up the issue, even when the tracker ticket was opened.
- There was no obvious email notification of the changes that I could find, nor is a random individual able to Cc themselves on a ticket.
- Years later I thought that my comment was summarily rejected, rather than accepted but adopted in a buggy way; I was reminded of it only by happenstance.

In light of this, I'm not sure how I could have known that there was any bit of text for me to track, nor am I sure how I could have tracked it other than by reloading the spec draft regularly. This seems like a significant burden on individuals providing feedback. It would be really helpful if it was possible for those providing feedback to track when/whether their comments are addressed without requiring them to pay constant attention, e.g. by some form of active notification. I hope you consider this input if there is ever a point at which you revise your process. 

Thanks,
Maciej
 
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 07:09:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 November 2012 07:09:29 GMT