- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:58:02 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9187 Summary: Need transparency in issue and bug status in databases & document. 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" vs. "ESCALATED". -- 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