W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Revised Decision Policy for discussion

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 20:57:24 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <EE31AA4C-878C-4741-9BC1-31CDA77F0FED@apple.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>

Hi Aryeh,

This is great feedback. Would you be willing to file these issues under the "working group decision policy" component in W3C bugzilla, or would you prefer me to do it?


On May 16, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:

> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> The following proposed revision of the Decision Policy resolves nearly all outstanding bugs, including such frequent requests as defining the process for reopening an issue, and defining the process to be followed for the LC Review period. Comments welcome:
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html
> I notice that there's no way for a bug filer to withdraw the bug.  I
> suggest the description of the INVALID state say that it can also be
> used by the bug filer to withdraw it.  I've convinced people at least
> once that their bug is incorrect and asked them to resolve it INVALID
> so as not to have to take up the editor's time, in cases where it's
> not clearly junk or spam.
> There doesn't appear to be any option to disagree with the editor's
> handling of an issue but not escalate it to an issue.  People might
> not want to escalate to an issue because they don't think it's worth
> the time, for instance.  I suggest that an additional substep of step
> 5 be added allowing commenters to add the Disagree keyword immediately
> if they don't want to reopen or raise as an issue, but still want to
> express their disagreement.
> Some typos: "Pesponses", "Escalted", "beoyond", "issuescan",
> "decisopn".  Also "w3c.org" instead of "w3.org".  (The former has the
> same A record as the latter, but it's not the standard domain name,
> and it has different MX records.)
> I notice that there's nothing specific about what changes the editor
> is allowed to make, beyond "Although editors may field issues through
> other forums if they wish, we will require editors to address all
> bugzilla bugs."  Does this mean that there are no specific limitations
> on what changes the editor can make, or just that this document
> doesn't cover them?  In particular, I'd like to know whether the
> editor will remain free to make substantive changes provided they
> prove uncontroversial -- except if they would force us to return to
> Working Draft, of course.  For example, adding a specification for a
> previously-undocumented JavaScript property where no one but
> implementers is likely to care about the details of how it's
> specified.
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 03:57:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:13 UTC