- From: Maciej Stachowiak via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:35:03 +0000
- To: public-html-commits@w3.org
Update of /sources/public/html5/decision-policy In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv3246 Modified Files: decision-policy.html Log Message: Added numerous clarifications based on feedback from Shelley Powers. Index: decision-policy.html =================================================================== RCS file: /sources/public/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html,v retrieving revision 1.6 retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -d -r1.6 -r1.7 --- decision-policy.html 7 Oct 2009 09:53:22 -0000 1.6 +++ decision-policy.html 8 Oct 2009 00:35:01 -0000 1.7 @@ -146,13 +146,20 @@ the same bug. The issue then returns to <a href="#basic-step-1">step 1</a>.</dd> <dt>5.d. No: Escalate to Issue</dt> -<dd>If the commenter is dissatisfied with the resolution and does not +<dd><p>If the commenter is dissatisfied with the resolution and does not believe it is productive to ask the editor to reconsider, he or she -may ask to escalate the issue to the issue tracker. Those who have -permissions to create and edit issues will help with the -mechanics. The issue tracker issue should reference the original -bugzilla bug. The bugzilla bug will reference the issue and have the -TrackerIssue keyword added.</dd> +may ask to escalate the issue to the issue tracker. A commenter with +Tracker access can raise an Issue directly. A commentor without +tracker access should apply the TrackerRequest keyword, and should +suggest a title and text for the tracker issue. Team contacts or other +volunteers with access will move TrackerRequest issues into the tracker.</p> + +<p>The issue tracker issue should reference the original bugzilla +bug. The bugzilla bug will reference the issue and have the +TrackerIssue keyword added.</p> + +<p>Note: comments with additional information may still be added to a +bugzilla bug after it has been escalated to the tracker.</dd> <dt>6. Working Group Decision</dt> <dd>Issues escalated to the tracker will be decided by Working Group Decision. The <a href="#escalation">Escalation Process</a> describes how Working Group decisions are made.</dd> @@ -170,10 +177,11 @@ <dd>If the commenter does wish to enter a Formal Objection, he or she should do so according to W3C Process. This includes explicitly stating that it is a Formal Objection, as well as giving a technical -justification for the objection. The Formal Objection should be -recorded in the bugzilla bug, and the bug should be placed in the -CLOSED state and tagged with the FormalObjection keyword. <b>** This -is an endpoint for the process. **</b></dd> +justification for the objection, and at least one way the objection +could be removed. The Formal Objection should be recorded in the +bugzilla bug, and the bug should be placed in the CLOSED state and +tagged with the FormalObjection keyword. <b>** This is an endpoint for +the process. **</b></dd> <dt>9.b. Ordinary Disagreement</dt> <dd>If the commenter does not wish to enter a Formal Objection, then @@ -202,12 +210,12 @@ <tr><td>UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED, REOPENED</td> <td>Waiting for editor response.*</td></tr> <tr><td>REOPENED and WGDecision</td> <td>Waiting for editor to implement Working Group decision.*</td></tr> <tr><td>RESOLVED</td><td>Editor has addressed issue, waiting for boilerplate.*</td></tr> -<tr><td>VERIFIED</td><td>Reporter has not responded.</td></tr> +<tr><td>VERIFIED (and none of the below)</td><td>Reporter has not responded.</td></tr> +<tr><td>VERIFIED and TrackerRequest</td><td>Reporter requested escalated to Working Group. Waiting for mechanics of escalation.*</tr> <tr><td>VERIFIED and TrackerIssue</td><td>Reporter escalated to Working Group. Waiting for Working Group decision.*</tr> - <tr><td>CLOSED and FormalObjection</td><td>The issue is settled, and reporter formally objected to WG.</td></tr> <tr><td>CLOSED and Disagreed</td><td>The issue is settled, and the reporter disagreed, but not as Formal Objection</td></tr> -<tr><td>CLOSED and none of those</td><td>The issue is settled, and the reporter agreed with the final outcome.</td></tr> +<tr><td>CLOSED (and none of those)</td><td>The issue is settled, and the reporter agreed with the final outcome.</td></tr> </table> </section> @@ -237,13 +245,21 @@ for the escalation process. **</b></dd> <dt>1. Raised Issue: Chairs Solicit Proposals<dt> -<dd>When an issue enters it starts in the RAISED state. The chairs -solicit volunteers to write change proposals when the issue is +<dd><p>When an issue enters it starts in the RAISED state. The chairs +solicit volunteers to write Change Proposals when the issue is raised. For pre-existing issues, we will ask for volunteers in a -staggered fashion to avoid flooding the group. Note: it's ok for -multiple people to volunteer to produce independent proposals for the -same issue. If no one volunteers within a month, proceed to <a href="#escalation-step-2a">step -2.a</a>. Otherwise proceed to <a href="#escalation-step-2b">step 2.b.</a> </dd> +staggered fashion to avoid flooding the group. Requests for Change +Proposals will go out to the HTML WG mailing list and possibly via +other channels as well. Note: it's ok for multiple people to volunteer +to produce independent proposals for the same issue. If no one +volunteers within a month, proceed +to <a href="#escalation-step-2a">step 2.a</a>. Otherwise proceed +to <a href="#escalation-step-2b">step 2.b.</a> </p> + +<p>Note: information can be added to an Issue without writing a full +Change Proposal by sending email to the public-html mailing list that +mentions the issue number in the format ISSUE-<i>nnn</> +where <i>nnn</i> is the issue number.</dd> <dt id="escalation-step-2a">2.a. Closed without Prejudice</dt> <dd>If no one volunteers within a month of the Chairs' request, or a
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 00:35:08 UTC