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 23:30:06 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NpVLq-0007nU-CS@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #11 from Larry Masinter <lmm@acm.org>  2010-03-10 23:30:06 ---
(In reply to comment #10)

I'm sorry if my tone seemed combative, but given recent events, maybe you could
cut a little slack.

> You made at least five concrete suggestions,

I did make some suggestions, but I'd hope that you'd actually respond to the
spirit of the "bug" report, of which the concrete suggestions were just
examples. While it's great if those suggestions are helpful, it would be fine
if you found some other more efficient way of addressing the concern. I can
think of many other ways of addressing the issue raised; e.g., in a separate
document, publication, web page, which is released along with the working group
documents. I'm really not tied to the concrete suggestions I made, but I didn't
want to just complain without pointing out at least one way of trying to
address the issue.

> However, we do not intend to make the Decision Policy a publication of the
> Working Group and therefore the Decision Policy does not really apply. 

OK, that itself wasn't clear; I didn't understand how this was going to get
updated, and your reference to previous "rough consensus" of the working group
as somehow preventing use of two my suggestions left me puzzled. If there's a
new problem report for the decision policy, the fact that there was a previous
agreement about a little bit of process associated with the decision policy
shouldn't interfere with addressing the new problem, should it? 

I'm sorry you read my tone or references to Nommit as mocking. The working
group would be more constructive if ad hominem argumentation could be reduced.

I put "bug" in quotes because, while "bug" is traditionally used for software,
and sometimes documents and test cases, it seemed was a stretch for me to apply
it to something like the process document.  "Scare quotes" are "quotation marks
are placed around a single word or phrase to indicate that the word or phrase
does not signify its literal or conventional meaning."  I can't see why that's
not courteous or constructive. 

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 23:30:14 UTC

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