Re: ISSUE-93 (details): Return Details Element [HTML 5 spec]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> I marked the issue as postponed. If the bug does result in resolution
>> where everyone is happy, we can mark it closed. If not, we can raise
>> the issue again.
>> Is this equitable?
> I think Ian is correct that raising the issue was out of order. I also agree
> with you that it would be wasteful to close the issue and raise a new one
> after the bug is resolved again. However, in the Tracker, issues can just as
> easily be moved from CLOSED to RAISED as vice versa. Therefore I suggest we
> mark the issue CLOSED for now, but reuse it and bring it back to RAISED if
> we need an issue for this bug after all. I would mildly prefer to do that
> than to have the tracker issue in an odd state. Does that sound ok?

Oh sure, I didn't mean to go out of procedure anyway. I misread the
original procedure, and didn't want Bruce's comment to get lost.

No worries on doing whatever you need to for this one.

> Besides the order of operations, I'd like to note one other procedural
> matter about this tracker issue: an issue should be raised only if someone
> sincerely objects to the bug resolution and asks for escalation. It's ok for
> someone who agrees to actually do the mechanics, but only if someone who
> objects asks for escalation. In this case, it doesn't look to me like anyone
> who disagrees with the disposition asked for escalation in the bug. I do
> appreciate that you raised this issue in the spirit of helpfulness, and I
> don't want you to shy away from helping people out in the future. But I
> mention this so that, if we get to the point in the process where raising an
> issue would be in order, we make sure to pay attention to this detail.
> Issues should not be raised speculatively, only if someone sincerely objects
> to a bug resolution and asks to escalate.

Actually, this was in response to a request Bruce, but off list.

> Regards,
> Maciej


Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 21:05:19 UTC