- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 08:44:21 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9284 --- Comment #4 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2010-05-05 08:44:21 --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > WORKSFORME - Accepted, but no spec change. The spec already addresses the > > comment due to a previous change. Editor's response required. > > I suggest letting other people than the editor to resolve bugs as WFM without > editor's response. It's the existing practice and seems to work well. I think it would be fine for people other than the editor to close bugs as WFM, assuming the relevant editor for a draft does not object. However: 1) It's still useful to explain to the originator what next steps are available to them if they disagree that the issue is already addressed (e.g. reopen the bug). 2) It's still necessary to explain how the issue is already addressed. This is required both for benefit of the bug originator, and in the future to be able to produce a disposition of comments. For obvious spam or duplicates, hopefully no further explanation is needed. So perhaps the best solution here is a variant of the editor's response template. Or maybe such cases of WORKSFORME are sufficiently obvious that they don't require further explanation. Comments from the editors and the other chairs welcome. -- 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 Wednesday, 5 May 2010 08:44:23 UTC