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

Re: priority of bugs changed...again

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:24:58 -0400
Message-ID: <4BAA58FA.6060801@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On 03/24/2010 01:46 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> 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.

That's what weblogs are for.

>> 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.

Again, we have covered this before.

Full W3C editing privileges are granted to members that wish to do so. 
While we welcome collaboration when parties are agreeable to this, this 
is not a requirement.  When people are working independently, we request 
that  independent work be put into separate directories.  Periodically, 
we select amongst these drafts for publishing as a WG draft.

Be clear: separate drafts are not the process that we recommend, it 
merely is available as an option.  When possible, bug reports and 
amicable resolutions are superior alternatives.

In summary: if you produce a spec text that Ian agrees to include in his 
draft, that's great.  Similarly, if Ian produces spec text that you wish 
to include in a draft you produce, that's fine.  Nothing short of a 
Working Group decision will require either of you to accept text from 
each other.

Finally, just so that there is no confusion: Ian does have a separate 
SCM system that he uses to manage his work prior to being pushed out to 
the W3C CVS servers.  People have an equal opportunity to do similar 
things themselves.  Such SCM systems are outside of the W3C's control.

I think we have made extraordinary provisions for enabling additional 
editors.

>> - Sam Ruby
>
> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 18:25:28 GMT

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