- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:58:54 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Nov 1, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> One thing I'd like to clarify: anyone can escalate a bug to a >> tracker issue once there is an editor's response, it doesn't have >> to be the originator. So if someone makes a spec comment that leads >> to a change, and a third party doesn't like that change, they can >> escalate to the tracker. >> What the process does not provide for is a way to escalate to the >> tracker before the editor of the relevant draft has weighed in. I'm >> hesitant to change that at this time, for a few reasons: > > It just occured to me that *theoretically* this places the editor in > a position of creating a denial of service attack -- simply by not > responding. Note: I said theoretically; the reason this never > occurred to me before as I don't expect this ever to happen in this > working group. > > My preference for how to handle purely theoretical issues is to > address them if and when they actually occur by adjusting the > process at that time. Indeed, if that problem ever comes up, we will need to solve it. In our experience so far, though, bugzilla issues have been processed in a timely fashion, if not always to the satisfaction of the commenter or the Working Group. That is why the decision policy focuses on a paper trail and clear escalation path for those who are dissatisfied with the first pass results, and not on dealing with a lack of response. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 2 November 2009 09:59:28 UTC