W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2011

RE: process question and query about ISSUE-88

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:12:07 -0500
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com)" <mjs@apple.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C7A5719F1E562149BA9171F58BEE2CA412CB897263@EX-IAD6-B.ant.amazon.com>
I'm happy to have a phone call: we really need to understand this so we can work effectively with you. We're generally pleased with the process so far, but, although you sentences are simple and declarative, I don't feel I know if we should be escalating issues into Issues or not.

Is there a convenient time for us to chat?

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:05 AM
> To: Richard Ishida; Phillips, Addison
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net);
> Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com); Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)
> Subject: RE: process question and query about ISSUE-88
> 
> One further thought, if you think a phone call would help to
> explain the HTML WG processes please just let me know.
> 
> /paulc
> 
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Cotton
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:33 AM
> To: 'Richard Ishida'; Phillips, Addison
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net);
> Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com); Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)
> Subject: RE: process question and query about ISSUE-88
> 
> > Aharon didn't really understood what he had to do here, and
> Addison and I weren't able to understand it either.
> 
> The HTML WG Chairs sent the following email on Sep 7, 2010 that
> outlined a plan for how the WG was going to get to Last Call:
> 
> Timeline to Last Call
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html

> 
> > Reminder: - Jan 22, 2010 is the cutoff for escalating bugs for
> pre-LC consideration - all issues in tracker, calls for proposal
> issued by this date.
> >Consequences of missing this date: any further escalations will be
> treated as a Last Call comment.
> 
> If you review the message above it explains in detail what Sam was
> trying to explain.  Basically in your case if you disagreed with
> the disposition of any of your bugs that were filed before Oct 1,
> you had until Jan 22 to request that they be escalated into WG
> Tracker issues.
> 
> Please let me know if you understand the situations after reviewing
> the above message and this email.
> 
> /paulc
> 
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Ishida [mailto:ishida@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 3:36 AM
> To: Phillips, Addison
> Cc: Paul Cotton; public-i18n-core@w3.org; Sam Ruby
> (rubys@intertwingly.net); Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com);
> Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: process question and query about ISSUE-88
> 
> I think one specific question was, what does this mean:
> 
> "--- Comment #57 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2011-01-17
> 21:54:41 UTC ---
> Reminder: - Jan 22, 2010 is the cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-
> LC consideration - all issues in tracker, calls for proposal issued
> by this date.
> Consequences of missing this date: any further escalations will be
> treated as a Last Call comment.
> "
> 
> Aharon didn't really understood what he had to do here, and Addison
> and I weren't able to understand it either.
> 
> RI
> 
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Activity Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/International/

> http://rishida.net/

> 
> On 10/02/2011 06:11, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> > Hello Paul,
> >
> > Thanks for the response. Our list of re-opened bugs is scattered
> across a couple of teleconferences. We'll pull the list together
> for you. It isn't a long list.
> >
> > I am not sure that our intention was to escalate them to WG
> issues, at least, not in all cases. Our goal was to decide whether
> your WG's or editor's proposed resolution satisfied us. I'm not
> sure that any issues require resolution before LC, assuming that LC
> issues will be dealt with on an equal footing. Nonetheless, I will
> check with the WG membership before committing to any particular
> resolution.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Addison
> >
> > Addison Phillips
> > Globalization Architect (Lab126)
> > Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs)
> >
> > Internationalization is not a feature.
> > It is an architecture.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 8:53 PM
> >> To: Phillips, Addison
> >> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net);
> >> Maciej Stachowiak (mjs@apple.com); Michael(tm) Smith
> (mike@w3.org)
> >> Subject: RE: process question and query about ISSUE-88
> >>
> >>> Recently (a few weeks ago, actually), our WG reopened a few
> bugs
> >> filed before your cutoff date. We would like to know how these
> will
> >> be handled, etc. That is: what is your process for clearing our
> open
> >> bugs?
> >>
> >> Can you help us here by explicitly listing the bugs you re-
> opened?
> >>
> >> Please note that the Jan 22 deadline was for the escalation of
> bugs
> >> into WG issues.  See:
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-

> html/2010Sep/0074.html
> >>
> >>> - Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC
> >> consideration - all issues in tracker, calls for proposal issued
> by
> >> this date
> >>> Consequences of missing this date: any further escalations will
> >> be treated as a Last Call comment.
> >>
> >> Was your intent to convert the re-opened bugs in WG Issues to
> ensure
> >> they were handled before Last Call?
> >>
> >> /paulc
> >>
> >> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> >> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> >> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison@lab126.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:48 AM
> >> To: Paul Cotton; Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net); Maciej
> Stachowiak
> >> (mjs@apple.com); Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)
> >> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> >> Subject: process question and query about ISSUE-88
> >>
> >> Dear HTML5 WG chairs,
> >>
> >> I have been tasked [1][2] by the Internationalization WG with
> >> touching base with you about two topics.
> >>
> >> 1. Recently (a few weeks ago, actually), our WG reopened a few
> bugs
> >> filed before your cutoff date. We would like to know how these
> will
> >> be handled, etc. That is: what is your process for clearing our
> open
> >> bugs?
> >>
> >> 2. We noticed also that ISSUE-88 seems to have gone dormant and
> are
> >> wondering about the status of this issue. There is no recent
> update
> >> on http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html. Is any
> progress
> >> being made there.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Addison
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/16 ACTION-16
> [2]
> >> http://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/19 ACTION-19
> >>
> >> Addison Phillips
> >> Globalization Architect (Lab126)
> >> Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs)
> >>
> >> Internationalization is not a feature.
> >> It is an architecture.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:19:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:19:35 GMT