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

On Aug 10, 2009, at 6:08 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Ian Hickson On 09-08-11 02.55:
>> 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.


> 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.

I'm going to put together some stats and maybe a preliminary list.  
I'll split the difference and say 4 months. This seems like a  
reasonable timeframe to assess controversy.

Note: my primary goal here is not about in-spec controversy markers,  
though if anyone wants to add those I would suggest working off the  
same list or following a similar objective rule. My primary goal is to  
track the progress of the Working Group on resolving such issues. I  
believe that to improve something you first have to measure it. Thus,  
I'm hoping to produce regular updates on these issues and the number  
resolved since the last update.


Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 01:35:56 UTC