W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > April 2010

[Bug 9187] Need transparency in issue and bug status in databases & document.

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:38:04 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NxOLE-00040F-5j@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9187





--- Comment #14 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  2010-04-01 17:38:03 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Could the chairs please confirm:
> 
> * If a change proposal is not completed by its deadline, the issue will be
> closed without prejudice and DEFERRED to the NEXT VERSION of HTML.
> 
> * An issue that is closed without prejudice in this way can only be re-raised
> with approval of the HTML Chairs. It is an ENDPOINT for the escalation process.
> 
> Are these correct?

I would suggest the addition of the word "presumed" before DEFERRED.  This
would make this part of the sentence consistent with "closed without prejudice"
and "can ... be re-raised with approval of the HTML chairs".

I don't think we need to annotate this further in the process itself, but my
expectation is that the chairs will entertain any or all fully-thought out
proposals that have a reasonable chance of gaining consensus.  That being said,
once an issue has timed out, I do not believe that it is anybody's best
interest to allow the WG to spend further time on proposals that are not
fully-thought out or do not have a reasonable chance of gaining consensus.

[if it will help, I'll gladly split this out to a separate bug report]


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2010 17:38:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 April 2010 17:38:08 GMT