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: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:30:35 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NpTUB-0000pV-Vm@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9187





--- Comment #6 from Larry Masinter <lmm@acm.org>  2010-03-10 21:30:35 ---
Re: "I will try to split these up into one bug per issue."

Please don't. I submitted what I think is a coherent "bug". 

I pointed out some examples of the "bug" and gave some proposed solutions, I'm
not sure I've really hit them all, or the proposals that I made were the
"right" ones. The main point of the "bug report" is that the process should
maintain the integrity of the information about comments on specifications: for
the record, for the next version, for reviewers, for all of the reasons why a
standards process should be "open". 

I think there is requirement that comments get a response *from the working
group*. There are several paths through the current process where a comment
gets a response from one individuals (the editor) or a few (the chairs, who set
a schedule for change proposals and judge whether the proposals are proper),
and where the working group opinion isn't assessed except by the absence of
objections, or (worse) the absence of anyone willing to both put in an
extraordinary amount of "work" (one might even say "abuse") that comes along
with making proposals. These steps may be necessary in order to get the
document and the process stabilized quickly, but losing the visibility of the
cases in which that happened isn't really in the best interest of anyone.

So, if we're following the current process, please, editors of the process
document, either accept this bug 9184, resolve the bug, mark it as NEEDSINFO,
WONTFIX or whatever, but don't split it up.

(There's a separate 'bug' in the process, if the editor of a document can split
up a 'bug' into several other 'bugs' and then reject one or more of them as
'already decided by rough consensus'; that would be counter to the requirement
to actually address the comment. )

(The notion that we're using the process to discuss the process seems odd --
reminds me of Reddit's Nommit; is this really appropriate?)


-- 
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 Wednesday, 10 March 2010 21:30:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 March 2010 21:30:38 GMT