- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 12:48:44 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21806 --- Comment #2 from Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> --- (In reply to comment #1) > I'd prefer EDITOR's RESPONSE rather than EDITOR'S DECISION, as many confuse > Editor's proposed resolutions as Working Group Decisions. That's actually what I meant, thanks for catching that. > I'd prefer a more specific URL, something like > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#basic-step-2 > > And perhaps to make it even more stable, changing the anchor to > #editors-response. That works for me; I don't have a strong preference as the anchor name. > As to how the decision policy itself would need to change, clearly the > boilerplate would have to be removed, the description of the resolutions can > stay, and the part of the boilerplate that talks about potential next steps > becomes part of the text of the decision policy. What needs to be discussed > is the following bullets: > > * A clear statement of whether the comment was accepted or rejected. > * A rationale for the change or lack of change (at least enough for the > Disposition of Comments). > * A link to the relevant spec diff or diffs, if the spec was changed. > > The proposed boilerplace covers #2, but doesn't clearly cover #1 and #3. My > take is that these are reasonable items for people to expect in a proposed > resolution. Thoughts? How about making it: (Accepted|Rejected) (Rationale) (Pointer to change) ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 12:48:46 UTC