W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Proposed clarification to our issues process

From: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:05:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+EzO0=uzdnNnGueYYnzh6-yL5NqODoVMY5jboK-eRvSv1B-8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 2:12 AM, olivier Thereaux <
olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi group,
>
> Given that our issues count has recently jumped from 15 to 102, now feels
> like a good time to clarify our process for dealing with issues. We have
> been managing fine until now and have been using a tacit, logical process
> which I simply wish to make sure we all agree on.
>
>
> * Issues are first "Raised". The "Raised" status means that the issue is
> under consideration by the group, being clarified, and with proposals being
> discussed.
>
> * Issues may then be "Closed" if they are duplicate of an already solved
> or open issue or "Postponed" if the group resolves to look into it at a
> later stage.
>
> * Issues become "Open" once a group member considers that the issue is
> clear enough and that there is emerging consensus around resolution
> proposals. The group member (who often will be the editor but does not have
> to) will change the status to Open, mention that (s)he is working on a
> proposed resolution.
>
> * Once the person working on the issue has finished work on the solution,
> (s)he will change the issue status to
>  "Pending Review". This will generally mean that the editor has included
> the proposal in the Editor's Draft.
>
> * The group will then meet (or agree on the list) on the proposed
> solution, and the chair(s) will change the issue status to "Closed" after
> making sure the resolution has been adequately documented.
>
>
> An alternative to this process would have the editor in charge of status
> changed from Raised to Open and from Open to Pending Review. Let's see how
> the "looser" process works before adopting the stricter version which would
> put a lot of workload on the editors.
>
> I'd like to put a short discussion on this on the agenda of our call
> tomorrow. Do send your thoughts in advance if you like and/or if you can't
> make it to the meeting.
>
> Cheers,
> Olivier
>
>
Hi Olivier, that sounds fine to me.  I've already been looking through the
issues and have been working on some of them.

Chris
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 21:05:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 21:05:59 GMT