W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2010

[Bug 9187] New: Need transparency in issue and bug status in databases & document.

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:58:02 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-9187-2486@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

           Summary: Need transparency in issue and bug status in databases &
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: working group Decision Policy
        AssignedTo: dave.null@w3.org
        ReportedBy: lmm@acm.org
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mjs@apple.com, Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com,
                    rubys@intertwingly.net, mike@w3.org

In the process, there are situations where an issue is marked "CLOSED" when the
status is actually "CLOSED after timeout". (The latter is called "CLOSED
without prejudice", but in fact there is a "prejudice", namely that the issue
cannot be reopened without the permission of the chairs.) 

The distinctions between these two states is fundamental: in one case, the
issue was resolved amicably, while in the other case, the issue was deferred
because no one in the working group was able to volunteer to create a
counter-proposal which met all of the (somewhat arbitrary) format requirements
imposed by the chairs, within a time limit also imposed by the chairs (without
getting the working group agreement about the time limit). In one case, there
was even a volunteer to write a change proposal but the time requested for
submitting the change proposal was considered (by the chairs, without agreement
from the working group) to be too long.

The status of issues, and the fact that they were closed because of lack of a
specific kind of response within an arbitrary timeout period should be clear in
the issue status. There should be two states "CLOSED" and "TIMEDOUT". 
Significant care has been given to embedding status information in the
document, so that reviewers can know which issues are still open or subject to
more careful review. This annotation should carry through even into last call,
as reviewers outside the working group may well have additional information and
alternative proposals to bear, if only they knew the status. That is, issues
that are "TIMEDOUT" should be marked as such in the document.

In the case of  "bugs" which have been marked by the editor as "RESOLVED" and
"WONTFIX", but the original bug reporter has not had time to object to this
annotation and escalate the issue --- please verify that these "bugs" also are
reported in the issue status. Perhaps the bugzilla database needs to have a
similar distinction between "EDITOR MARKED RESOLVED" and "RESOLUTION ACCEPTED"

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 14:58:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:13 UTC