- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:26:49 -0600
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Shelley, > >> To return to the W3C work, the suggestion has been made in a couple of >> emails that we begun discussions about major changes on the email >> list. The suggestion sounds reasonable, but there are two problems >> with this approach. > > At one time Shawn was going write a weekly review all the Bugzilla > traffic for the previous week and post it to this list. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0217.html Interesting -- would be a good way of highlighting deceptively important bugs. > >> Our change procedure is based on items >> beginning as bugs and then going through the issue tracker if the >> editor disagrees. > > Yes. From all I can gather you followed the formal procedure. Step 0. > Email is optional. But you CCd the group anyway. > Thanks for affirming this. I'll continue to send emails, not just via Bugzilla, but via email, like I did this week with the hidden attribute, progress, and meter. But in parallel with Bugzilla, as I do want the formality of the change procedure. >> Regardless, none of this matters if we wake up one day and found one >> specification, suddenly, split into six, with little care to quality, >> or damage caused by the resulting split. Then when it's pointed out >> that such split is harmful, the result is reversed, and the bugs that >> are supposedly the "cause" of such aberrant actions, dismissed out of >> hand. > > Bugs can't be dismissed out of hand as they can be escalated to issues. > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation > I have escalated all of the closed, wontfix bugs to issues. Unfortunately, the hidden attribute bug that supposedly led to core split (if I understand the bug reports correctly), was reopened, but had no further action. Until the editor closes it, I can't escalate it as an issue. And I still have a couple of other bugs waiting action. >> Yet, if these had been managed properly, formally, I bet we would find >> this group more in agreement or not--if arguments were allowed to be >> heard, if formal change proposals were allowed to be given, if the >> HTML5 author didn't act so abruptly, and unilaterally. > > Arguments still should be allowed to be heard, Shelley. The decision > policy procedure is still in place. > The policy is in place, but the edits this week demonstrate what I feel are flaws in the system. The number one flaw is lack of quality assurance. Trying to handle 200+ bugs in a week is not necessarily a good practice. >> I forgot to add that the end result of all this manic activity this >> week is I believe the bugs I initially wanted to create as issues, >> were mostly rejected, after the rather interesting mechanizations this >> week. This does mean that I can now add these as issues, which I >> wanted to do in the first place. > > I don't see why not. Sam, Maciej, Paul, this would be in accordance > with the procedure, would it not? > I did for those I could--I received issue tracker edit capability this week, since I have so many issues now. We'll see what happens with the rest. > Best Regards, > Laura > Thanks for responding to me, Laura. I really appreciate it. Shelley > -- > Laura L. Carlson >
Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 20:27:19 UTC