W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > February 2013

Re: W3C Web Crypto WG - classifying issues

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:09:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CACvaWvYucha7-V3tSkLTD-6ePhAn4FkFZCCp5K=tuus3vT6cOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>
Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:25 AM, GALINDO Virginie
<Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> With respect to our discussions during our call this week, I would suggest
> the following categorization of ISSUES, taking into account the following
> tools :
>
> -          Associate ISSUES with appropriate PRODUCT (and we have 4 products
> at the moment, the low level PI, the high level API, the use case, the Key
> Discovery)
>
> -          Put some issues in the POSTPONED mode to highlight the fact that
> it seems to be important for the group, but there is no contribution at the
> moment.
>
>
>
> ISSUE-40 : Move ISSUE to product Key Discovery.
>
> ISSUE-34 : Remove product reference and Associate POSTPONE state.
>
> ISSUE-30 : Associate with Key Discovery product
>
> ISSUE-26 : No change, but expecting proposal and change state to POSTPONED,
> if no contribution in the coming 3 weeks.
>
> ISSUE 25 : Associate with Key Discovery product
>
> ISSUE 24 : Remove any product associated.
>
> ISSUE-19 : No change, but expecting proposal and change state to POSTPONED,
> if no contribution in the coming 3 weeks.
>
> ISSUE-15 : Remove product associated and mark as POSTPONED.
>
>
>
> This mail does not address the discussion for closing or not issues, but
> rather classifying it correctly.
>
> Discussion about closing issues is under the responsibility of the WG and
> editors of the product associated (if any).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Virginie

Since you were effectively proposing alternative handling of these
issues that what was originally proposed, I attempted to split them
into their own threads. I appreciate the attempt to summarize, but
without the description or links to the ISSUES, and without being
associated with the original thread, it makes it a bit hard to notice
what the issue was or that you were making alternative proposals.
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 18:09:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 February 2013 18:09:59 GMT