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 22:11:09 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NpU7R-0004zg-2g@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #8 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  2010-03-10 22:11:08 ---

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

Two points.  First, I don't see that as particularly odd, given that the W3C
process document itself indicates that the process for modifying a
Recommendation may be used to modify the Process Document itself:


Second, we are using a piece of software which is known to be effective at
ensuring that comments don't get lost.  I see that as different than "using the
process to discuss the process".  Should a new draft of the HTML Working Group
Decision Policy be produced, I see it as highly likely that we will follow the
same process seeking input and accessing consensus before the draft gets put
into effect.

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 22:11:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:47 UTC