- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 23:26:34 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Shawn Medero <soypunk@gmail.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: HTML Issue Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > I am concerned that this issue, as described, does not follow the > > template and principles laid out in past posts to this working group > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0953.html > > Also, I'm not sure what principle the test issue doesn't get right, > maybe you could be a bit more specific? Sorry, I meant this issue tracking system, not the specific issue. > > Having issues summarised in the above format in the wiki is much more > > likely to allow everyone to have their point of view considered. > > Tracker has a Description field that is editable, plus notes which can > be added. Aha, I didn't realise you could edit the description field. This pretty much resolves my concerns. I would recommend, though, that we ensure that every issue follows the format described in: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTemplate http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0946.html ...maybe following the example listed in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0953.html > I would expect that when discussion on a specific issue progresses, the > Description field would be maintained to summarize the current state of > discussion. That's good, if it happens! :-) On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Shawn Medero wrote: > > Starting today, I'm going to be migrating pages from the wiki that can > actually made into issues. To be honest (and I don't mean to slight all > of the folks who have poured a lot of effort into the wiki) there aren't > that many pages that can be "copied" over as-is. Most of the "issues" on > the wiki read like background research or even position papers... they > start with one solution (instead of a problem) and it colors the rest of > the content on that page. Things have gotten a little better in the last > month and there's a lot of valuable content to be mined from the wiki > for particular issues... so I hope to tackle that as best I can. Thank you for taking this on! I agree that many of the issues in the wiki don't follow the format mentioned above. I look forward to seeing the tracker have better-written issues! :-) > I have your linked emails set aside as guidance and some previous notes > from off-line discussions we've had about this topic. I hope you'll give > the Tracker a chance... Absolutely. Question: Is there a way to distinguish issues that are in the following states?: * Newly added * Written in the format described in the template and e-mails above * Read, considered, and handled by the editors * Closed In particular, the first three would be really useful to me, as I don't necessarily want to look at issues in the first category until they're in the second category, and I don't want to look at issues in the third category again since they've already been handled by Hyatt or myself. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 23:26:46 UTC