W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: [META] Raising a new issue as "raised" or "open"?

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:13:46 +0000
Message-Id: <0E286FC1-129A-40BB-AA48-B0E4119A16E7@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Héctor Pérez-Urbina <Hector.Perez-Urbina@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>

Tracker is  not at all perfect -- or at least doesn't behave in the  
way the *we* would like -- but we are stuck with it. Moreover, we  
don't have control over it and can't "demand" that changes be made --  
other users apparently like the way it works now. This leaves us with  
the option of working around its deficiencies as best we can -- which  
is what the various procedures are designed to do.


On 6 Mar 2008, at 16:28, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi Alan!
>> You did the correct thing. It was my mistake to miss the issue.
>> Apologies again,
>> Alan
> Disagreed! Tracker is the culprit! :)
> A proposal to change the behaviour of Tracker:
>   * When raising an issue, the initial state should be "raised",  
> not "open".
>   * Perhaps, instead of different tables for "raised" and "open",  
> there
> should be only one for both states (actually: every state different  
> from
> "closed"). One can easily distinguish between the "degree of  
> openness" by
> the "State" flag in the table.
>   * similar for the actions: currently, there are distinct tables  
> for "open"
> and "pending review" tables. I do not regard this to be useful.
>   * The "Issues" Wiki page also talks about an "owner" of an issue:
>      "Each open issue will be assigned an "owner" whose responsibility
>      it is to initiate/lead a discussion, the objective of which is to
>      bring to the WG a proposal to close the issue as RESOLVED,  
>      or REJECTED; the owner will normally be the same person who  
> raised
>      the issue."
>     So normally, the owner is the raiser, but for the non-normal  
> cases, what
> is still missing is a specific "owner" entry  for each issue.
> Cheers,
> Michael
>> On Mar 6, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Michael Schneider wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> In yesterday's telco we overlooked the new issue 96, since it
>>> hasn't been in
>>> tracker's "open" section, but in the "raised" section.
>>> When I raised this issue, I remembered the following policy:
>>>   <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Issues>
>>>   "When creating new issue, it should initially be assigned
>>>   the state "Raised" (rather than "Open")"
>>> However, tracker didn't follow this policy, but marked my new issue
>>> to be
>>> "open" first. So I edited the issue to mark it as
>> "raised"... with the
>>> result that it effectively became invisible. :-]
>>> How to proceed? I can, of course, go an "re-open" my issue. But we
>>> should
>>> think about either changing the policy, or tracker's way to
>> handle new
>>> issues.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Michael
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 08:14:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:03 UTC