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

[Bug 12734] Clarify what types of changes can be made outside the decision process

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 22:56:35 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QRBNz-00088S-3g@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12734

--- Comment #6 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 22:56:34 UTC ---
My concerns are addressed by the current text, as long as no one takes it upon
themselves to review all diffs and object on principle to anything they think
is a feature addition or removal.  The current text would appear to permit
this, since it suggests there's a blanket ban on feature additions/removals and
doesn't require anyone to object to the addition or removal itself.

I would prefer it if the policy said that the chairs would normally not make a
revert request unless someone objected to the technical substance of the
commit.  To be clear, I'm not saying that they should have to provide any
rationale -- "I don't think this is a good feature" would be good enough for
me.  But not an objection solely on procedural grounds, or based on the
hypothetical possible existence of someone who might not like the change.  For
instance, Sam Ruby's complaint about the addition of an atob/btoa spec was not
grounded in an assertion that he or anyone else had an actual problem with the
feature.

Still, I can live with this policy as long as no one systematically requests
the revert of large classes of new changes.

-- 
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, 30 May 2011 22:56:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:10 UTC