Re: reasonable length of time before bugs in bugzilla database are addressed

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>> With Ian's commitments to so many specifications, we need to consider
>> starting off next year with a discussion about adding a couple of new
>> editors, to help ease the burden placed on one man.
>
> If anyone would like to edit anything, I'm more than happy to help getting
> people up to speed. There are literally dozens of critical specs in the
> Web standards space that desperately need more editors. So yes, please, if
> you can bring in more editors, do so.
>
> I work on the number of specs that is necessary to make good progress on
> all of the specs that I work on. This is why, for instance, I stay on
> schedule -- back in 2006 (before the W3C started work on HTML5), I
> predicted that we would reach zero open issues in the WHATWG in October
> 2009, and that is exactly what happened. Meanwhile, the W3C HTML WG was
> formed with the charter stating that Last Call (zero issues) would be
> reached in June 2008 -- at which point the HTMLWG's issue tracker was
> still more than a year from reaching its peak of open issues. So the
> numbers don't suggest that I'm overwhelmed with work, they suggest the
> HTML WG is overwhelmed with work.
>

I would say with the current Change Process, this group is ready to
deal with issues.

There are several bugs in the bugzilla database that I know are
controversial. I don't want to just start a discussion in this group,
though, without it being part of the formal Change process procedure.
I am fairly confident they will be marked as WONTFIX, and escalated to
issues.

However, December is not the time to push this, everyone just wants to
eat cookies, but I will be pushing these bugs into issues beginning
next year.

> (I already said all this here:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0195.html
> ...but you didn't reply, and instead just repeated your statement again.
> I would appreciate it if we as a working group could rely on people not
> repeating arguments after they've already been responded to, without
> acknowledging those responses and adjusting the arguments accordingly.)
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL

Ian, you have a habit of misinterpreting what people say, and then
repeating your arguments based on these misinterpretations. And, to be
fair, there's a good chance we have a habit of misinterpreting what
you say, too.

I don't think it does the group good, or either of us, to continue to
talk past each other. Too many emails, too little substance.

I am no longer interested in the email threads -- I want my effort in
this group to be focused on filing bugs, fixing bugs, escalating
issues, discussing either bugs or issues, and creating change
proposals.

> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>

Shelley

Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 18:12:56 UTC