W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2011

[Bug 11637] Disallow abusing the Decision Policy by escalating editorial bugs

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:42:51 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PxE2l-0002ZK-6J@jessica.w3.org>

Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |hsivonen@iki.fi

--- Comment #4 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> 2011-03-09 07:42:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't think this is helpful, as it will lead to arguments about whether a bug
> is editorial or not.

A bug is editorial if there'd be no code changes required to implementations
that were conforming before the change to make them conforming to the spec
after the change (all conformance classes considered). 

The clearest case is when even the CP writer agrees that there are no
conformance changes. Whenever the CP writer puts "None" in the "Conformance
class changes" section, the Chairs should throw out the ISSUE, in my opinion. 

When the Decision Policy was being sold to participants of the WG suspecting
Denial of Productivity vulnerabilities in the Policy, Sam wrote:
"At some point, every process has to rely on at least some person or 
persons operating in good faith (otherwise, it it turtles all the way down)."

When ISSUE escalators clearly aren't exercising sufficient restraint and
respect of the group's time when considering what to escalate, I think it would
be appropriate for the Chairs to practice more good-faith discretion in
throwing out editorial ISSUEs as opposed to applying the heavy procedure to
editorial issues.

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, 9 March 2011 07:42:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:44 UTC