W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2010

Re: priority of bugs changed...again

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:46:17 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0271003241046x99755f2n2addbe4d88423832@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 03/24/2010 09:45 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@apple.com>  wrote:
>>> On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> Here we go again, same as last time, which led to me having to write a
>>>> dozen change proposals at once:
>>>> Why were my bugs set to P3 from P2?
>>> FYI, it looks like all currently open bugs are P3, except for a handful
>>> that
>>> I made P1 after consulting with Ian. As mentioned elsewhere, these were
>>> bugs
>>> relating to ISSUE-31 and ISSUE-79. I assume this is to make room for
>>> multiple levels of elevated priority, should that be necessary. Perhaps
>>> we
>>> should just make P3 the default for our bugzilla components, since mass
>>> priority changes result in bugzilla spam and seem to annoy people. I
>>> don't
>>> know if that's possible on a technical level.
>> Perhaps this just demonstrates that the tasks are too much for one
>> person and it is time to add more HTML5 editors. It would make more
>> sense to progress and fix things to the satisfaction of the parties,
>> than play with the bug statuses.
> A few points:
> Overall, I do have a concern that the priorities as set by the editor do not
> match the priorities as perceived by the co-chairs.  But I see that as a
> fault of the co-chairs for not collecting and providing that information,
> not a fault of the editor.
> Second, be aware that all three co-chairs are involved in F2F standards
> meetings this week, and that has impacted our ability to make quick
> responses.  But as you may have seen, despite this we WILL act quickly and
> in concert to address egregious issues of decorum.  Which leads me in to my
> third point:
> Given what is currently going on, I will ask you to be particularly careful.
>  Use of the word "play" here is distracting.

So there's method to the madness? Unless there's some underlying
reasonable basis on which anything is done anymore, you'll have to
excuse me if I see this all as nothing more than play. You may not
like the word, but it matches my perception.

> Finally, you have brought up the idea of additional editors before.  We have
> been, and continue to seek additional editors.  Unless you are volunteering
> or know of a volunteer, bringing this point up again serves no purpose.  In
> fact, I will ask you not to do so unless you have new information.

On the contrary, I have volunteered to be an editor for HTML5. My
offer was rejected. I was instructed to write change proposals and
file bugs, instead, which I am doing.

Here's an idea: ask for additional, volunteer editors for the HTML5
specification. Full editing privileges, access equal to Ian's.

> - Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 17:46:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:39 UTC