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

Re: A brief description of issue tracker states

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:04:51 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0806200504xc8d1c96qfba82af49db4265c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: smedero@ldc.upenn.edu, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, rob@robburns.com, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>

Hi Steve,

Great suggestions. Thanks.

>  CLOSED = Chairs, Editors or Working Group believes this issue to be RESOLVED.
>
>  Implies that the an issue can be closed without consensus being
>  reached. As an issue can be considered resolved by the "editors"
>  without the working group considering the issue as resolved or
>  consensus being reached.
>
>  suggest changing to:
>
>  "CLOSED = Chairs, Editors and Working Group believes this issue to be
>  RESOLVED. "

Seems that resolutions are also tracked:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/resolutions

If closed = resolved, is the resolutions page needed? Or is the
resolutions page to track formal working group decisions derived from
survey results? If that is the case maybe consider renaming the
resolutions page "decisions"?

f.y.i. there is also a "Postponed" state:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/postponed

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson

On 6/20/08, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi shawn, thanks for putting issue tracker states info [1] up on the wiki.
>
>  a couple of suggestions:
>
>  "PENDINGREVIEW = Working Group Chairs will review the Editors'
>  contributions and determine if Working Group consensus has been
>  reached"
>
>  Implies that only the editors contributions will be taken into account
>  to determine if the working group has achieved consensus, this
>  contradicts the HTML working group decisions policy [2].
>
>  And undermines a core W3C value, directly referred to in the HTML WG charter.:
>
>  "Consensus is a core value of W3C. To promote consensus, the W3C
>  process requires Chairs to ensure that groups consider all legitimate
>  views and objections, and endeavor to resolve them, " [3]
>
>
>  Suggest changing to
>
>  "PENDINGREVIEW = Working Group Chairs will review the all
>  contributions and determine if Working Group consensus has been
>  reached. After due consideration of different opinions, consensus is
>  not achieved, the Chairs may put a question to the Working Group"
>
>
>  CLOSED = Chairs, Editors or Working Group believes this issue to be RESOLVED.
>
>  Implies that the an issue can be closed without consensus being
>  reached. As an issue can be considered resolved by the "editors"
>  without the working group considering the issue as resolved or
>  consensus being reached.
>
>  suggest changing to:
>
>  "CLOSED = Chairs, Editors and Working Group believes this issue to be
>  RESOLVED. "
>
>
>  If nobody has objections I will edit the changes.
>
>  [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML
>  [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#decisions
>  [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies
>  --
>  with regards
>
>  Steve Faulkner
>  Technical Director - TPG Europe
>  Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
>
>  www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
>  Web Accessibility Toolbar -
>  http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 12:07:59 GMT

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