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

Re: splits, discussions, and manic behavior

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:26:49 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001091226r1c9c8efdobddecffdd177be12@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Laura Carlson
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Shelley,
>
>> To return to the W3C work, the suggestion has been made in a couple of
>> emails that we begun discussions about major changes on the email
>> list. The suggestion sounds reasonable, but there are two problems
>> with this approach.
>
> At one time Shawn was going write a weekly review all the Bugzilla
> traffic for the previous week and post it to this list.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0217.html

Interesting -- would be a good way of highlighting deceptively important bugs.

>
>> Our change procedure is based on items
>> beginning as bugs and then going through the issue tracker if the
>> editor disagrees.
>
> Yes. From all I can gather you followed the formal procedure. Step 0.
> Email is optional. But you CCd the group anyway.
>

Thanks for affirming this.

I'll continue to send emails, not just via Bugzilla, but via email,
like I did this week with the hidden attribute, progress, and meter.
But in parallel with Bugzilla, as I do want the formality of the
change procedure.

>> Regardless, none of this matters if we wake up one day and found one
>> specification, suddenly, split into six, with little care to quality,
>> or damage caused by the resulting split. Then when it's pointed out
>> that such split is harmful, the result is reversed, and the bugs that
>> are supposedly the "cause" of such aberrant actions, dismissed out of
>> hand.
>
> Bugs can't be dismissed out of hand as they can be escalated to issues.
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation
>

I have escalated all of the closed, wontfix bugs to issues.
Unfortunately, the hidden attribute bug that supposedly led to core
split (if I understand the bug reports correctly), was reopened, but
had no further action. Until the editor closes it, I can't escalate it
as an issue. And I still have a couple of other bugs waiting action.


>> Yet, if these had been managed properly, formally, I bet we would find
>> this group more in agreement or not--if arguments were allowed to be
>> heard, if formal change proposals were allowed to be given, if the
>> HTML5 author didn't act so abruptly, and unilaterally.
>
> Arguments still should be allowed to be heard, Shelley. The decision
> policy procedure is still in place.
>

The policy is in place, but the edits this week demonstrate what I
feel are flaws in the system. The number one flaw is lack of quality
assurance. Trying to handle 200+ bugs in a week is not necessarily a
good practice.


>> I forgot to add that the end result of all this manic activity this
>> week is I believe the bugs I initially wanted to create as issues,
>> were mostly rejected, after the rather interesting mechanizations this
>> week. This does mean that I can now add these as issues, which I
>> wanted to do in the first place.
>
> I don't see why not. Sam, Maciej, Paul, this would be in accordance
> with the procedure, would it not?
>

I did for those I could--I received issue tracker edit capability this
week, since I have so many issues now. We'll see what happens with the
rest.

> Best Regards,
> Laura
>

Thanks for responding to me, Laura. I really appreciate it.

Shelley

> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 20:27:19 UTC

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