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
>
>

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 17:46:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:29 GMT