W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: sections removed, current and ongoing

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:45:43 -0500
Message-ID: <4B488887.3040401@intertwingly.net>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> In addition to the Issue process, another option when you disagree with
>> the outcome is to reopen a bug with new information for the editor.
>> That's happening in the case of <details>. So please comment in the bug
>> if you feel strongly. I suspect this one is going to the issue tracker
>> one way or another though.
> 
> The problem here is that keeping track of all bugzilla discussions is 
> not as easy, and clearly not as transparent as having discussions here. 
>  I don't believe the single e-mail that gets sent here when a bug is 
> tagged with 'NE' is sufficient to gain attention.  (I usually ignore 
> those e-mails cause they usually contain no real information).
> 
> I think a more appropriate solution needs to be found that balances the 
> transparency of the mailing list, with the useful organisation of bugzilla.
> 
> Bugs for relatively minor or editoral issues that shouldn't be 
> controversial, can go straight in bugzilla without bothering everyone on 
> the list, and be dealt with quickly by the editors of whichever spec its 
> for.
> 
> This is effectively the type of issue I thought bugzilla was set up for 
> dealing with in this group, so we could separate the trivial issues from 
> the more significant ones being discussed here.  But somehow, bugzilla 
> seems to have morphed into catch-all system for all issues, big and small.
> 
> Major issues, such as those requesting the removal of sections, should 
> start their discussions here on the list, which will allow us to get a 
> better understanding of how the rest of the group feels about the issue. 
>  (People should be able to use reasonable judgement and common sense to 
> determine whether their issue is major or minor, but if in doubt, 
> mailing this list first shouldn't hurt.)

Can you cite a major bug that wasn't discussed first on the list?

> A bug should be opened in bugzilla either at the same time as the 
> discussion starts, or at least once its clear it's a major issue with 
> significant discussion and no clear resolution.
> 
> Bugzilla can then be used for documenting the significant arguments 
> for/against that have been raised, citing/quoting relevant e-mails. 
> Significant discussion of the issue should still take place on the list, 
> with buzilla being used to record the major arguments.
> 
> If the discussion gets heated, perhaps the interested parties could be 
> asked to continue their discussion only within bugzilla and come back to 
> the rest of the group later when they have something to report.  This 
> allows people to opt-in or out of a particular discussion freely by 
> CC'ing themselves on the bug, and serve to reduce the traffic on this 
> list, keeping the discussion somewhat isolated from those who may not be 
> particularly interested in following every little bit of it.
> 
> This will allow the editors to review the issue with all the arguments 
> presented concisely, and allow an initial decision.  The editor should 
> then respond to this list giving a detailed rationale for agreeing or 
> disagreeing with the request, and record the decision in the bug 
> tracker.  Following that, the existing decision policy process can 
> continue to be followed to escalate the issue if necessary.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 13:46:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC