RE: Minutes from CNEG meeting 2019-04-11 - un-tagging requirements, really?

Good Evening Antoine,

On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:32 PM, Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] wrote:

> I am not sure to understand why removing the profile-negotiation tag from
> requirements that have been met. They are still relevant to negotiation even if they
> are met, aren't they? I would consider closing them is a much better option (though
> one may argue it's better done in plenary). Loosing the connection from Use Cases
> and Requirements to our products does not seem good - especially if there are some
> automatic listings made by using these tags...

This was discussed in ACTION-302 (cf. email thread starting at [1]). The final resolution was that if we consider that a requirement has been addressed in a deliverable, then we remove the tag but keep the issue open until it has been addressed in _all_ deliverables:

[[
[...] If conneg has completed this [requirement #217] you can remove the conneg label
and you are no long responsible for that issue. You may want to leave a
comment that you've included it in your document and are removing your
label.]]

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Feb/0556.html

[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Feb/0597.html

Best,

Lars

 
> On 12/04/2019 12:35, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> > ... are at [1].
> >
> > We spent most of the meeting reviewing open GitHub issues, deciding to flag
> some of them for closing and to remove the profile-negotiation tag from
> requirements we consider have been met.
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/04/11-dxwgcneg-minutes

> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Lars
> >
> > *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
> >

Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2019 18:02:13 UTC