- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 06:42:48 -0600
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Maciej wrote: > Speaking for myself and not necessarily my co-chairs (because I haven't > asked their opinion): What I would prefer to see is that we resolve the > issue based on some initial proposals, and then submit any proposals for > further improvement via the bug process. If the bug process turns out to be > insufficient for any further proposed improvements, then those specific > improvements can be escalated to their own tracker issues. > I do not think it is wise to continue recycling the same tracker issue for > multiple rounds of changes. Handling things that way would lead to an issue > that just stays open indefinitely. >From my reading of the HTML Working Group Decision Policy [1]: * Open Tracker Issues are issues with someone working on a change proposal [2]. * If the change proposal is not done by the deadline, the issue will be closed without prejudice and DEFERRED to the NEXT VERSION of HTML. * An issue that is closed without prejudice in this way can only be re-raised with approval of the HTML Chairs. It is an ENDPOINT for the escalation process. Is this correct? Thanks. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html [2] The default deadline to complete a Change Proposal is ONE MONTH from the time someone volunteers. The chairs may grant a longer deadline for complex issues on request. -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 12:43:23 UTC