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

[Bug 10524] Please clarify procedure and recourse for non-working group members when they are unsatisfied with a bug resolution

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:19:30 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OvBkg-0003HP-UF@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10524





--- Comment #8 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-09-13 16:19:30 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > If the section pointed out is not sufficient, it needs to be amended until
> > sufficient. Or it needs to be removed, and a condition of membership formally
> > defined. 
> > 
> > You can't change the rules, saying they're acceptable for one person, but not
> > another. Such inconsistency causes confusion, and gives an appearance of bias.
> 
> Bias such as the following
> 
> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20100913#l-689
> 
> Where all I have to do is comment on a bug and the W3C team rep decides to
> change the rules of what gets posted to HTML-WG. 
> 
> This following the W3C team rep changing the rules of HTML WG team membership. 
> 
> This following the W3C team rep changing the rules about who could post to the
> HTML WG, following my postings to this email.
> 
> Do we see a trend here? 
> 
> Rules that are changed based on bias, that single out individuals aren't rules
> -- their barriers to participation.

Make that:

they are barriers to participation

-- 
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 Monday, 13 September 2010 16:19:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:24 UTC