Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I don't entirely agree, but it's better than nothing. Here's what I would
> propose:
> 1) The issue was raised at least two months ago, by one of email, bugzilla or
> the issue tracker.
>       AND
> 2) There has been no mutually satisfactory satisfactory outcome.
>       AND
> 3) There is an open issue in the issue tracker indicating this.
> (I originally said 6 months, but 2 months seems like a reasonable timeline.)

I prefer 6 months than 2 months because in practice many issues have been 
open more than 2 months simply because I hadn't gotten to the relevant 
feedback yet. Sometimes it takes even longer, e.g. just earlier this 
afternoon I responded to some mail from 2007 and 2008, but I think 6 
months would be a relatively good average and would ensure we don't end up 
with issues that are so new that I haven't even looked at them yet.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 00:55:47 UTC