- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:07:37 -0500
- To: public-html-admin@w3.org
On 12/13/2012 06:37 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > > So by all means let's keep figuring out how to solve this, but let's not > get bogged down in logistics. FPWDs are allowed to be wrong. Let's use > that right! While I completely agree with that sentiment, I would like to encourage some forward progress to be made. At the same time there is a parallel discussion going on regarding the wisdom of allowing new features to go into 5.1 editors drafts with a minimum of discussion. I believe that these two topics are related. Having a default for new features of "unless nobody objects" and having a default of removal for bad material of "not now" is not an overall winning strategy. My recommendation is twofold: ensure that there are bugs covering the topics being discussed, and ensure that bugs that merit discussion at least get updated with some regularity. At the present time, there are 130 bugs[1]. The mean duration since the last update is 92 days. The standard deviation is 39.5. If I remember my math correctly, that means that about two thirds of the time you will hear some response within four months. With five editors, I would hope that we could do better. And on the plus side, I will note that not all of these bugs have the same urgency. My preference is that the editors come up with a mechanism by which members of the working group can identify particular bugs as needing attention. It need not be something that is formalized in the Decision Policy. It could be as simple as using the existing importance or priority fields. - Sam Ruby [1] http://tinyurl.com/cjlxo2f
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 19:08:16 UTC