- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:12:20 -0600
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > I believe this reply is still applicable: > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0331.html> > > On Jan 4, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Shelley Powers wrote: > >> There are now bugs, including some that I've filed, that are over two >> months old. The only action taken on them was their priority was >> demoted, from the standard P2 to P3. Why they were demoted is unknown >> -- it was a seemingly arbitrary move. >> >> The HTML5 specification cannot progress with unaddressed bugs. If the >> sole HTML5 author has too much work, this group needs to consider >> opening the specification to other editors. >> >> Regardless, we need to consider a process where bugs that are left >> beyond a certain point either have their priority moved up, or are >> converted to issues so that the entire group can provide a solution to >> the bug. I actually favor the latter -- if the bugs are too complex to >> handle simply, with edits, then they should be resolved by the group. >> >> Shelley >> > > But this is not a procedure, nor a governing principle. We need consistency in this effort. For instance, why were some bugs downgraded, and others not? There was no reason given, and the effort seemed to be arbitrary. We should discouraging any form of arbitrary behavior. In addition, we should not be encouraging behavior that results in bugs being ignored for two months, and then one person seemingly addresses 200+ bugs in one week. This is not an efficient process, nor is it one that focuses on quality rather than quantity of effort. I would also like the other two co-chairs to respond to my concerns. Shelley
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 16:12:53 UTC