W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2008

Re: tracker already has ternary state - RAISED

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:27:42 +0200
Cc: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, www-archive@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
Message-Id: <A6F0D328-7075-4CB6-B10F-BEF55C1B2EFD@robburns.com>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>

Hi Gregory,

I like everything you proposed here. I would only add two things.

1) It would be nice to have issue-tracker issues handled by WG member  
review like the sections of the draft. This way we ask at least two WG  
members to volunteer to review each issue and provide a summary report  
on their opinions on it. If need be the chairs could also appoint  
someone to review if the chairs felt the volunteers didn't provide  
enough balance.

2) I'm not sure your proposal requires bugzilla at all then. I think  
the Wiki actually serves as a very good tool situated between the  
issue-tracker on one side and the WGs email, IRC and telecon  
deliberations/discussions. I've tried to consistently setup each of  
these issues I've raised to provide a quick mailto link to contribute  
to the WG discussion and another quick email search link to find the  
messages with that same subject. This provides a nice way to link the  
wiki to the email discussions (I'm thinking of trying to do something  
similar for IRC). Email and IRC provide a nice persistent log of the  
discussions while the Wiki pages can evolve to reflect the feedback  
and criticisms form the WG. The Issue-tracker then provides a nice  
mechanism to stay on top of what's going on.

Other than those two points, I fully support your suggestion.

Take care,
Rob



On Jun 5, 2008, at 9:02 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:

> aloha, josh!
>
> my open question to/request of the chairs -- which i made sure was  
> logged
> in IRC at today's telecon -- is as follows: when one opens an issue,  
> it is
> not marked as "OPEN", but rather as "RAISED" -- can the chairs in  
> their
> capacity as chairs, therefor, issue a formal statement to the effect  
> that:
>
> * RAISED equals PROPOSED - proposal will be discussed on list and in
>  at least 1 telecon before marked as OPEN or quashed
>
> * OPEN equals UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION BY WG
>
> * CLOSE equals Editors/Chairs consider issue resolved - note that
>  issues should be closed only after being addressed at a telecon, so
>  that if there is dissent over the resolution, it can be logged and
>  objectors should be given an opportunity to convince the chairs that
>  the issue should not be closed
>
> or provide the rationale for not considering "RAISED" issues as  
> "PROPOSED"?
>
> bugzilla could then be reserved for micro-issues and detailed  
> discussion
> thereof, thus avoiding the bifurcation of feedback streams that using
> bugzilla to propose issues would cause...
>
> gregory
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> CONSERVATIVE, n.  A statesman who is enamored of existing evils,
> as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them
> with others.         -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>             Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
>  Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
> To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>,
> Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>,
> www-archive@w3.org, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, "Gregory J.  
> Rosmaita"
> <oedipus@hicom.net>
> Sent: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:43:34 +0100
> Subject: Re: discretion & the issue tracker (was Re: discretion in  
> adding
> issues)
>
>> Steven Faulkner wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Why can't there be a 'proposal tracker' implemented that is open to
>>> anyone in the working group to add proposals to, via a form perhaps
>>> that asks for certain information about the proposal, so it can then
>>> be evaluated and debated by WG members?
>>
>> That sounds like a good idea to me also.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Josh
> ------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 19:28:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:18 GMT