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

Re: HTML Working Group Decision Policy - for discussion

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 22:26:29 -0700
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20091009052629.GA4795@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Thursday 2009-10-08 01:24 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2009, at 12:26 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> If person A escalates and indicates that (s)he'll produce a Change  
>> Proposal but fails and the issue becomes deferred, can person B re- 
>> escalate the same issue and undefer it? Can person A re-escalate? (I'd 
>> expect it to be out of order if person A re-escalates.)
>
> I think it would be out of order for anyone to re-escalate an issue that 
> has timed out (or a nominally separate but effectively identical issue). 

This seems like a good opportunity for a denial-of-service attack.
If somebody wants to ensure that an issue isn't escalated later,
they can escalate it themselves and then fail to produce the change
proposal.

"Closed Without Prejudice" ought not to prevent an issue from being
re-escalated.  (That seems to me the normal meaning of "without
prejudice".)

However, preventing denial-of-service attacks in the other direction
(repeated raising of the same issues) would be good; this rule just
doesn't feel like the right way to do it.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 05:26:57 GMT

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