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

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

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:55:16 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NoofE-00012G-UJ@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9187





--- Comment #3 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  2010-03-09 01:55:15 ---
Looks like there are a couple of different requests here:

1) Use some state other than CLOSED for issues that are closed without
prejudice, for lack of action by a deadline, with the specific suggestion of
TIMEDOUT.

2) Continue marking issues that are closed without prejudice in the draft.

3) Mark issues that are closed without prejudice in the draft even during Last
Call.

4) 'In the case of  "bugs" which have been marked by the editor as "RESOLVED"
and "WONTFIX", but the original bug reporter has not had time to object to this
annotation and escalate the issue --- please verify that these "bugs" also are
reported in the issue status.' - I'm not sure what the request is here. When
you say "reported in the issue status" do you mean the issue status page,
something in the tracker, or the issue markers in the draft?

5) Bugzilla should distinguish among between "EDITOR MARKED RESOLVED" and
"RESOLUTION ACCEPTED" vs. "ESCALATED".

I will try to split these up into one bug per issue.


Some preliminary comments:

On (1), I'm told that the only way to add a new state to the tracker is to do
so across all W3C tracker instances, and that we'd need a very convincing
argument to add a new state. However, there is an existing POSTPONED state
which might be appropriate.

On (2) and (3), issue markers are a practice that the Working Group came to by
rough consensus (during last year's late summer publication round). They are
not currently documented in the Decision Policy. I would suggest that before
crafting a formal policy, it may be desirable to seek change informally with
the Working Group.

Also on (2) and (3), the current issue markers look something like this:
"ISSUE-41 (Decentralized-extensibility) blocks progress to Last Call". Clearly
that text would not be usable as-is for issues that do not block progress to
Last Call, and especially not during Last Call. Personally, as I see it the
very purpose of the markers is to flag issues that block progress to Last Call,
so I'm unsure of the merit of flagging issues that do not.

On (5), those three states are indeed distinguished in bugzilla. "EDITOR MARKED
RESOLVED" is identified by the state RESOLVED or VERIFIED without the
TrackerRequest or TrackerIssue keywords. "RESOLUTION ACCEPTED" is identified by
the CLOSED state. "ESCALATED" is identified by presence of the TrackerRequest
or TrackerIssue keywords.


-- 
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 Tuesday, 9 March 2010 01:55:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 9 March 2010 01:55:19 GMT