- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:08:10 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson On 09-08-11 02.55: > 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. Maciej also said: >> Since Ian is incredibly responsive to implementor concerns, >> even in the face of massive flamewars [...] it seems like a >> waste of time to mark such issues To which I want to add that until *you* have looked at a feature and told your view, controversy usually doesn't (fully) arise. Hence a 2 month rule sounds good, and your objection seems hypothetical. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 01:08:53 UTC