RE: drastic reduction of HTML WG issue tracker contributors: explanation please?

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 10:05 -0400, Justin James wrote:
> > the answer  appears in the IRC logs
> > 
> >  [18:56] <DanC> MikeSmith, do you know why there are just 5 people in
> > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/ there were a dozen or so as of
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Apr/00
> 00.html
> > [18:56] <MikeSmith> because of issues 42-50
> >
> > source: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20080613#l-359
> 
> Stephen -
> 
> That does not adequately explain the situation at all. Could someone please
> illuminate this group as to what "because of issues 42 - 50" is supposed to
> mean?

A bunch of issues were added to the tracker which prompted a discussion
of whether that was a good use of the tool. While we're sorting this
out, Mike reduced the list of people with write access to tracker.
Note the discussion continues...

# [18:57] <MikeSmith> we can add people back in after we have agreement
who should be in there
# [18:58] <DanC> in any case, yes, it makes sense to re-sync with people

See also the thread on discretion when adding issues in the issue
tracking list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008May/thread.html#msg3 and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Jun/thread.html#msg3
which is cited from issues 42-50, e.g.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/42


p.s. FYI, I started a discussion a little bit like this back in early
April...
re-sync on issue tracking
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-issue-tracking/2008Apr/0000.html


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 16 June 2008 16:08:45 UTC