Re: request to re-open

On 08/11/2010 08:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:30:33 +0200, Steven Faulkner
> <> wrote:
>> I raised this issue by email with editor 2 months ago,
>> he responded:
>> I asked him to respond to the bug:
>> and again:
>> If the editor wishes to resolve the issue he can take 5 minutes and
>> respond, which is what he should have done 2 months ago.
> I have to say I do not see why your bug/issue/email should have priority
> over anyone else their bug/issue/email.

The intent of the decision policy was to provide the editor with 
sufficient opportunity to resolve issues, not to create a bottleneck.

Bugs that no one is worried about can stay in the Editor's queue. 
Individuals can request expedition of individual items.  To the extent 
that the the editor can process such requests expeditiously, everybody 
benefits.  This is still the case.

The backlog of bugs has increased in each of the last three months(*). 
We also have an agreement with the editor on timeframes.  This bug 
exceeds such timeframes, has been requested for expedition, and a 
rationale for the expedition request has been provided.

And yet, to date, no call for proposals has yet been issued.  Should the 
editor continue to be unable to get to this bug, it is conceivable that 
one could be issued.  We will deal with that eventuality if and when it 
becomes necessary, but worst case, some efforts proceed in parallel, Ian 
is provided with a complete change proposal as input.

At no time is amicable resolution excluded as a potential outcome.

- Sam Ruby

(*) And, yes, backlogs are increasing elsewhere.

Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 14:44:37 UTC