- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 08:45:43 -0500
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> In addition to the Issue process, another option when you disagree with >> the outcome is to reopen a bug with new information for the editor. >> That's happening in the case of <details>. So please comment in the bug >> if you feel strongly. I suspect this one is going to the issue tracker >> one way or another though. > > The problem here is that keeping track of all bugzilla discussions is > not as easy, and clearly not as transparent as having discussions here. > I don't believe the single e-mail that gets sent here when a bug is > tagged with 'NE' is sufficient to gain attention. (I usually ignore > those e-mails cause they usually contain no real information). > > I think a more appropriate solution needs to be found that balances the > transparency of the mailing list, with the useful organisation of bugzilla. > > Bugs for relatively minor or editoral issues that shouldn't be > controversial, can go straight in bugzilla without bothering everyone on > the list, and be dealt with quickly by the editors of whichever spec its > for. > > This is effectively the type of issue I thought bugzilla was set up for > dealing with in this group, so we could separate the trivial issues from > the more significant ones being discussed here. But somehow, bugzilla > seems to have morphed into catch-all system for all issues, big and small. > > Major issues, such as those requesting the removal of sections, should > start their discussions here on the list, which will allow us to get a > better understanding of how the rest of the group feels about the issue. > (People should be able to use reasonable judgement and common sense to > determine whether their issue is major or minor, but if in doubt, > mailing this list first shouldn't hurt.) Can you cite a major bug that wasn't discussed first on the list? > A bug should be opened in bugzilla either at the same time as the > discussion starts, or at least once its clear it's a major issue with > significant discussion and no clear resolution. > > Bugzilla can then be used for documenting the significant arguments > for/against that have been raised, citing/quoting relevant e-mails. > Significant discussion of the issue should still take place on the list, > with buzilla being used to record the major arguments. > > If the discussion gets heated, perhaps the interested parties could be > asked to continue their discussion only within bugzilla and come back to > the rest of the group later when they have something to report. This > allows people to opt-in or out of a particular discussion freely by > CC'ing themselves on the bug, and serve to reduce the traffic on this > list, keeping the discussion somewhat isolated from those who may not be > particularly interested in following every little bit of it. > > This will allow the editors to review the issue with all the arguments > presented concisely, and allow an initial decision. The editor should > then respond to this list giving a detailed rationale for agreeing or > disagreeing with the request, and record the decision in the bug > tracker. Following that, the existing decision policy process can > continue to be followed to escalate the issue if necessary. - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 13:46:18 UTC