W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Moving forward on BIND

From: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 14:04:40 -0700
Message-ID: <42754468.2040509@cse.ucsc.edu>
To: 'webdav' <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:

> [...] most of the open Bugzilla issues should have been closed long ago.

Having reviewed all of the open issues, relevant sections of BIND and 
related specs, I would like to summarize my position wrt BIND. The 
existing issues all seem to have been sufficiently addressed and there 
have been motions made for each to be closed (or reassigned, as in the 
case of issue 5). As such, and without hearing any dissenting oppinions 
in almost a week, BIND should properly move forward and be submitted to 
the IESG for another last call.

> It's a shame that a new tracking system and last call procedure were 
> introduced, and then the WG doesn't stick to the process that was 
> agreed upon. 

Joe's last call process email, "WG Last Call on BIND" [1], states:

    - The issue opener may close the issue, if the vote count is still 0
    - If the vote count is >0, only a working group chair or person
    designated by the chair may close the issue\

and

- Issues that have 0 votes at the end of last call will be closed automatically

Neglecting the fact that the last call ended almost exactly three months 
ago (!), and all but issues 2 and 71 should have been closed at the 
time... It would seem from Joes' process email that either the person 
who opened the issues or one of the WG chairs should now close the 
remaining issues. NB: When making the motion for issue 71 to be closed, 
I removed my vote for it - the only one at the time. If the issue 
openers won't close the issues that have no votes, I would request that 
the WG chairs close them (or designate some to do so on their behalf) 
within the week.

Regarding Issue 2, the issue opener and only voter for the issue are the 
current WG chairs - might I request that they both promptly review the 
issue and associated commentary as well as the new text that was added 
to resolve the issue?


Best,
Elias

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0001>
Received on Sunday, 1 May 2005 21:04:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:08 GMT