W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2004

Issues tracking, Re: Issues with rfc2518bis-06 (part 3)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:38:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4146216C.9020800@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> I find that unacceptable for WG-tracked issues (of course it's fine for 
> the author's own issues or to duplicate the WG-tracked issues until the 
> author believes they've dealt with them).   The author can close the 
> issues in their document as soon as they've made changes, but for many 
> issues there needs to be some external item for the issues tracker 
> person to mark state on when the WG agrees the issue is actually closed.

I do agree that an issue isn't automatically closed just because the 
document editor thinks it is. But that doesn't seem to be a big issue -- 
give change control to somebody else as well, or have the author not 
close issues before there's WG consensus.

IMHO this has worked just fine for previous drafts, though. The document 
editor makes a proposal about how to resolve a specific issue to the 
mailing list, and does so in the working document (with the expectation 
that the change needs to be rolled back if the change turns out not to 
be ok).

The big advantages of having everything in one place are:

- document and issues list are in sync *by definition*
- published Internet Drafts automatically carry a list of open and 
resolved issues

Just my 2 cents,

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 13 September 2004 22:39:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT