W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: HTML Working Group Decision Policy - for discussion

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:44:44 +0100
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20091007134444.GC10026@stripey.com>
Shelley Powers writes:

> > The policy document can be found here:
> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
>
> First, I disagree with closing the bug if the item gets kicked into
> the tracker.

As the table at the bottom of the 'Basic Process' steps shows, bugs do
not get marked CLOSED when escalated to the Tracker; they get marked
VERIFIED and tagged as TrackerIssue.

> A closed bug implies nothing is being done to address the issue, but
> that's not true.

There's no implication going on; all the states have defined meanings,
listed in the policy document.

> If a person searches in the Bug database for open items, this item
> won't be among those returned.

It would be convenient if predefined Bugzilla links were provided for
the various meanings, to avoid any confusion.

> This will give the person the impression that there is no open items
> on this issue at this time. They wouldn't necessarily think to look in
> the Issue Tracker, either.

Since the policy clearly mentions the Tracker's use, anybody following
the policy should be aware of the Tracker.  (And anybody not following
the policy can't be catered for by what the policy says ...)

> This will, most likely, lead to numerous duplicate bugs.

Anybody diligently wishing to avoid giving feedback that others have
already given, to avoid duplication, shouldn't be searching only open
bugs: if the feedback has already been given and successfully dealt with
then the bug will be closed, and re-giving the same feedback would be
just as pointless.

> What are the actual mechanics of moving a bug to the issues tracker? A
> person who doesn't have Issue Tracker write access can't do this. Will
> Bugzilla have an option that does this automatically?

The policy says:

  If the commenter is dissatisfied with the resolution and does not
  believe it is productive to ask the editor to reconsider, he or she
  may ask to escalate the issue to the issue tracker.  Those who have
  permissions to create and edit issues will help with the mechanics.

So that is not automatic, but does cover those without Tracker privs.

> The escalational process for determining how to manage the issue does
> not reflect the most likely fact that the bugs/issues during Last Call
> will come from outside of the group. If the call for volunteers only
> occurs during the WG teleconference, which I'm having to assume
> happens, because this is not mentioned in the document,

The working group is chartered for asynchronous participation.  All
announcements and calls so far have been by e-mail.  Why do you think
that would suddenly change?

Smylers
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 13:39:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:50 GMT