- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:57:13 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org, bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> I don't understand, why was this escalated to the tracker while the >>> bug is still open? It looks like Ian rejected it but then you >>> reopened it with new info. Shouldn't we wait until it gets addressed >>> again? (I do believe Ian has seen your latest comments and intends to >>> respond.) >>> ... >> >> The information wasn't new, it just hadn't been added to the bug, and >> I didn't have the impression from Ian's latest comment: >> >> "Also, please don't file bugs on such trivial and unimportant >> matters." -- <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8845#c1> >> >> that he was going to do anything about it without the issue being >> escalated. >> >> (I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong on this) > > How about we close the issue until he addresses the bug? If he resolved > it again and you are not satisfied, you can just reopen issue 101. Being > grumpy doesn't absolve him of the responsibility to respond. > > (Side note to Ian: If you'd prefer to have this tracked through the > tracker instead, just re-resolve the bug.) In the meantime, Anne has decided the right thing was to close the Bugzilla bug. Anyway, I really don't care we manage the process to resolve it as long as it happens. It's a shame this - which really is an editorial issue - apparently needs a ton of mailing list postings and a two-stage escalation process. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 13:57:55 UTC