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

Re: tracker already has ternary state - RAISED

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:55:36 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0806070455p1a6edb5cw3c1f978dbb6bdac4@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, www-archive@w3.org, "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>, wai-liaison@w3.org

Hi Anne,

>> The question that needs a clear and unambiguous answer is, what is the
>> step-by-step procedure for a working group member to get a proposal
>> into the spec?
>
> So far it seems that if there's agreement between implementors and authors
> that a certain problem needs solving that is considered to be in scope
> something to solve the problem will be added to the specification. Which
> is then incrementally evolved by author and implementor feedback over the
> next few years.

So...

Step number one is...?
Step number two is...?
Step number three is...?
etc.
Last step is proposal is  incorporated into spec.

Where does bugzilla fit in?
Where does issue tracker fit in?

In your statement above:
Where and how is this agreement made?
Which implementors and authors are you referring to?
Those should  be included in the procedure's  path if they are critical.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Laura
-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2008 11:59:50 GMT

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